Albany's race to be NYC

[41chevy]

New York Times, Oped 1/31/2016

If you own a gun in Albany, NY, you need to follow up on the new law that has gone into effect as of 1 January 2016. If your gun is not in your control, it must be cleared and locked up. Fines are heavy for offenders, starting at $250 for a first offense, and rising from there and including jail time.

Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan

told the

Times Union

it’s a common sense approach to some of the gun problems in the city.

“This is about responsible gun ownership,” Sheehan said. “This is important legislation to, number one, educate people about the importance of gun safety and then say, ‘We’re going to put some teeth in this because it is that important to our community.We will have Code Enforcement personnel implement raids to check for the gun owners compliance ’”

This new law raises as-yet unanswered questions, such as how does this do anything to deter the criminal aspect? It seems as though law-makers expect criminals to actually follow rules and laws. Which is interesting, since criminals don’t exactly follow existing regulations when they wish to procure a gun.

[grayhair]

Raids? Without probable cause and without a warrant? Wow, police state...

[ws721]

All I can say is HOW VERY VERY SAD WE AS A NATION HAVE BECOME

[41chevy]

Raids? Without probable cause and without a warrant? Wow, police state...

Supreme Court Rules Police DO NOT Need A Warrant To Search Your Home

“Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” ... “today’s decision tells the police they may dodge it, never mind ample time to secure the approval of a neutral magistrate.”

By M. David for New York Daily News | December 3, 2015

• 
• 
• 

• 

Much to the surprise of the general public, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of expanded the ability of law enforcement to search without warrants.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority of the court which ruled 6 to 3, the Washington Post reported.

“An occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote.

“Alito said there was no need for officers to obtain a warrant,” the Post explained. “When the situation remains fluid to the possible perpetration of a broad base of crimes.

The case in question stemmed from a 2009 arrest and search related to a robbery in Los Angeles.

What happened when police arrived was a girlfriend of an occupant allowed them to access the apartment, even though her boyfriend had refused to consent to the search.

But later, the girlfriend said she felt intimidated and only consented to the search because of police intimidation. This all happened after law enforcement had been told that they would not be given permission to search. The police persisted, and she caved to their request.

Initially, it was Roxanne Rojas who opened the door, but Walter Fernandez then quickly told officers they had to leave if they did not have a warrant, according to The Los Angeles Times.

“You don’t have any right to come in here. I know my rights,” Fernandez yelled at them from inside the apartment.

According to court records, Fernandez was shortly thereafter arrested in connection with the robbery the police were investigating. It was after they had taken him away that they returned, an hour later, and searched his apartment, this time with Rojas’ consent because Fernandez was not there.

Even though they lacked the probable cause to obtain a warrant or enter without one legally, they had arrested him, and then returned to obtain the bullied consent from Rojas, after Fernandez refused.

Once inside, they found a shotgun and what they deemed “gang-related materials.”

But in a case eight years before that, the Supreme Court ruled that the refusal should have once and for all prohibited the police from entering, or even returning and pressing the issue.

“A physically present inhabitant’s express refusal of consent to a police search” of his home “s dispositive as to him, regardless of the consent of a fellow occupant,” the court had then determined.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, along with Elena Kagan penned the dissenting opinion in this ruling. They said that the decision has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment, giving police a degree of power is necessary for the general public's safety.

“Instead of adhering to the warrant requirement,” Ginsburg said, “today’s decision allows the police to dodge it, not having to waste time to secure the approval of a magistrate.”

She added that the ruling, “shrinks to petite size our holding in Georgia v. Randolph.”

[Vladislav]

I think it makes sence to put a gun in a safe with a lock when you don't have it by your hand.

Might needed to make a safe right under a cushion of a bed some ones sleep in

[Dirtymilkman]

I think it makes sence to put a gun in a safe with a lock when you don't have it by your hand.

Might needed to make a safe right under a cushion of a bed some ones sleep in

Absolutely makes sense. I don't want my guns stolen or worse, my child or someone else's getting their hands on one. We have so many people that have zero common sense and have to be told how to do everything. It's a law already to leave a loaded gun somewhere that a child can have access to it. But they dont have access to the ones in my safe or the ones on my body.