Thursday, January 19, 2012

- Building CheckPoint Mikey

Mike Bloomberg, the itty bitty mayor of New York City, is reacting to the recent rash of mis-applications of the City's over the top gun laws by putting body scanners on selected streets. According to him, walking on a public street generates enough reasonable suspicion of your activities to justify the government giving you a body scan to see if you're packing.

If you find this to be somewhat excessive, you are not alone. Both the ACLU and NYCLU have raised concerns. It's no stretch to say that these groups have in the past considered second amendment issues to be ... well... secondary. So that they are raising objections is an indication of how far beyond the pale this particular totalitarian move is.

The scans will be put in place ostensibly to find people carrying guns illegally, but scans for salt, trans fats, and other dietary violations which have been so dear to his majesty, can't be too far behind.

The title of this blog came about from a conversation I had with a friend from Texas. I was explaining to him that New Jersey is like the East Germany of the United States. Now if Mikey get's his way, it looks like we'll even have our own Checkpoint Charlie. It should be at the Delaware river bridge - but it's no surprise that here, even that doesn't work right.


frithguild said...

I thought I would post a little snip of some research I am involved in:

In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S.Ct. 1678, 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965), the Supreme Court constitutionally invalidated a statute that imposed a $100 fine for the sale of contraceptives by an executive director of Planned Parenthood and a physician, who opened a clinic and advertised their intention violate the law. There, the Court spied emanations and penumbras originating from the rights secured in the 10 Amendments, which now support constitutional “zones of privacy.” See e.g. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152–53, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973).

The boundaries of the right to constitutional privacy, however, have not been clearly delineated. Sterling v. Borough of Minersville, 232 F.3d 190, 193 (3d.Cir. 2000). A zone of privacy has been extended to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-42, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt, 405 U.S. 438, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed. 645 (1944), and; child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070 (1925). No Court has ever recognized a zone of privacy relating to the Second Amend personal right to bear arms.

Perhaps we need "That Girl" to return when little Mikey puts up the scanners.

Hell_Is_Like_Newark said...

Velvet gloved totalitarians like Bloomberg (I have run into his type before in school and work.. not just government) have always been a particularly irritating to me (he term 'insubordination' has shown up in more than in my school and employment records).

Though not as much of an irritant as the people (who I find a disturbingly high percentage of the population) seem to swoon and revel living under the tyrants rule. To borrow a line from a song by a band that I like, "Sometimes it just feels good to do what you are told".

It is not so much the tyrants I fear, but those who are so willing to abandon their liberty. The latter is who gives the tyrant power. Bloomberg keeps getting re-elected..