Heads up if you're around metro D.C

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Exactly, where does it stop? Those transit/transportation agents, I believe are a federal branch of Homeland Security. I'm almost positive the guy I had a run in with had a vest in his Yukon that said Department of Homeland Security.
They can basically do whatever they want in the name of "safety". This bill could very easily be just an excuse to abuse their authority.

I'm not sure, but I also believe conservation officers can enter your house without a warrant, they need to believe you're illegally harvesting game animals though. Where as these transit/transportation officers can do it for any reason at all, you give these guys a hammer and now everything is a nail to them.


What's odd too, is the few congressman that voted against the bill are republicans lol, I would think democrats would vote against something like this.
why is that odd? libertarians infiltrated the pubs long ago.
 
Last edited:

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Who will have the final say on raids now? The Judge was the executive on the case, slightly removed. Infallible detectives and honest as the day is long, sergeants are going to be answerable to ?????. On the dead dog front: The Fed. Circuit covering New York has ruled that an unlicensed dog is contraband and you cannot make a claim if/when the cops shoot it.
depends. when we get to trial how is it possibly a "fair trial" if we aren't in an article III court and "the state" is plantiff, jury and judge?

can i still represent myself and have questions answered about the nature and cause of the accusation before I plea?
 
Last edited:

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
*Domicile

Quit quibbling, unless it's really the best you can manage.
who is quibbling? the possibility you will explore the legalese concept I introduced to you is Progress. the world will have the best regardless of race, religion or social status; it demands it.
 

greg nr

Well-Known Member
I'm gonna claim some high ground here. I never did like shit in my boots.

If they have a public safety reason to enter a dwelling, then fine, enter away. BUT, anything illegal they see doesn't legally exist. Not a grow op, not even a bomb factory. Sure, shut it down, but you can't prosecute. Your search was only for safety, not crimes.

Want to do that? Get a real warrant, if you have valid pc.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
who is quibbling? the possibility you will explore the legalese concept I introduced to you is Progress. the world will have the best regardless of race, religion or social status; it demands it.
Unless you're a lawyer, I'm willing to bet I have more legal experience than you do.

If you want to be taken seriously (a goal already much in doubt), quit snivelling about vocabulary and actually put together a coherent thought.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
I'm gonna claim some high ground here. I never did like shit in my boots.

If they have a public safety reason to enter a dwelling, then fine, enter away. BUT, anything illegal they see doesn't legally exist. Not a grow op, not even a bomb factory. Sure, shut it down, but you can't prosecute. Your search was only for safety, not crimes.

Want to do that? Get a real warrant, if you have valid pc.
This seems a fair compromise.
 

im4satori

Well-Known Member
I'm gonna claim some high ground here. I never did like shit in my boots.

If they have a public safety reason to enter a dwelling, then fine, enter away. BUT, anything illegal they see doesn't legally exist. Not a grow op, not even a bomb factory. Sure, shut it down, but you can't prosecute. Your search was only for safety, not crimes.

Want to do that? Get a real warrant, if you have valid pc.
if only

but even then

whats the sudden public safety reasoning and how many lives will it save... how many people have died or been injured as a result of not having this policy in the past

heres my anology

for the authority its like a foot ball game.... they don't expect to run the whole field in one play because then we will know weve been hustled by a shark like in a game of pool.... they do it a couple feet at a time slowing blurring the line and moving it forward... of course it all sounds reasonable in small portions but when you look back over 30 years you realize all those small changes added up to something that's a lot different

they know if they take away our rights all at one time we will all freak the fuck out... so they give it to us in small bites to make sure we don't choke on it
 
Last edited:

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
if only

but even then

whats the sudden public safety reasoning and how many lives will it save... how many people have died or been injured as a result of not having this policy in the past

heres my anology

for the authority its like a foot ball game.... they don't expect to run the whole field in one play because then we will know weve been hustled by a shark like in a game of pool.... they do it a couple feet at a time slowing blurring the line and moving it forward... of course it all sounds reasonable in small portions but when you look back over 30 years you realize all those small changes added up to something that's a lot different

they know if they take away our rights all at one time we will all freak the fuck out... so they give it to us in small bites to make sure we don't choke on it
And it's been going on for nearly half a century.

If Americans don't wake up soon, they won't deserve to be saved.

I don't say that to be meanspirited. My point is that those who would be free must be both vigilant and willing to fight. The American People have been neither.
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Unless you're a lawyer, I'm willing to bet I have more legal experience than you do.

If you want to be taken seriously (a goal already much in doubt), quit snivelling about vocabulary and actually put together a coherent thought.
domicile and home is the difference between legal and lawful.

its not so much vocabulary as jurisdiction.
 
Top