http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10335003.stm

harry wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10335003.stm

Heh!

In the US, the case would have been tossed as the gun was the fruit of an
unlawful search.

The cops were looking for a person and persons don't hide under mattresses.

In the US, a search warrant specifying a stolen car does not give the cops
the right to look in closets or bureau drawers.

Had the gun be in plain sight, the cops here could use it, but under a
mattress, no way.

In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10335003.stm

Heh!

In the US, the case would have been tossed as the gun was the fruit of an
unlawful search.

Indeed. It's precisely and specifically due to abuses such as this, which the
British Crown has been perpetrating against its subjects for at least a
quarter of a millennium, that our Bill of Rights places tight restrictions on
the government's authority to carry out searches:

"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."

I thank God that I live in America, not in Britain. And that we here are
citizens. Not subjects.

On Jun 20, 5:38*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10335003.stm

Heh!

In the US, the case would have been tossed as the gun was the fruit of an
unlawful search.

Indeed. It's precisely and specifically due to abuses such as this, which the
British Crown has been perpetrating against its subjects for at least a
quarter of a millennium, that our Bill of Rights places tight restrictions on
the government's authority to carry out searches:

"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."

I thank God that I live in America, not in Britain. And that we here are
citizens. Not subjects.

Ah, but we have the queen. The alternative being the likes of Bush and
Saddam.

harry wrote:

I thank God that I live in America, not in Britain. And that we here
are
citizens. Not subjects.

Ah, but we have the queen. The alternative being the likes of Bush and
Saddam.

Your system does have advantages. If we could have had Bush for as long as
you've had the queen, the world would be a far, far better place.

In the last election, I, personally, was rooting for JEB Bush. After eight
years of his presidency, we could then elect that good-looking Hispanic Bush
nephew. By that time, the dynasty would be firmly established and it would
be only a small step to a monarchy (which is what we right-wingers secretly
desire anyway).

Oh well. We each must live with our deficiencies...

On Jun 20, 1:02*pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 20, 5:38*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:





In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10335003.stm

Heh!

In the US, the case would have been tossed as the gun was the fruit of an
unlawful search.

Indeed. It's precisely and specifically due to abuses such as this, which the
British Crown has been perpetrating against its subjects for at least a
quarter of a millennium, that our Bill of Rights places tight restrictions on
the government's authority to carry out searches:

"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."

I thank God that I live in America, not in Britain. And that we here are
citizens. Not subjects.

Ah, but we have the queen. The alternative being the likes of Bush and
Saddam.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you left out obama, jfk, roosevelt, etc.

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:54:13 -0700 (PDT), RickH
wrote:

On Jun 20, 1:02*pm, harry wrote:
On Jun 20, 5:38*pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:





In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10335003.stm

Heh!

In the US, the case would have been tossed as the gun was the fruit of an
unlawful search.

Indeed. It's precisely and specifically due to abuses such as this, which the
British Crown has been perpetrating against its subjects for at least a
quarter of a millennium, that our Bill of Rights places tight restrictions on
the government's authority to carry out searches:

"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."

I thank God that I live in America, not in Britain. And that we here are
citizens. Not subjects.

Ah, but we have the queen. The alternative being the likes of Bush and
Saddam.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

you left out obama, jfk, roosevelt, etc.


I forgive you for leaving out Woodrow Wilson.

All schools named after him should be torn down.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:
harry wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10335003.stm

Heh!

In the US, the case would have been tossed as the gun was the fruit of
an unlawful search.

Indeed. It's precisely and specifically due to abuses such as this,
which the British Crown has been perpetrating against its subjects for
at least a quarter of a millennium, that our Bill of Rights places
tight restrictions on the government's authority to carry out
searches:

"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."

I thank God that I live in America, not in Britain. And that we here
are citizens. Not subjects.


for the time being......Comrade Obama is working hard to change that.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 13:21:36 -0500, Jim Yanik
wrote:

I thank God that I live in America, not in Britain. And that we here
are citizens. Not subjects.


for the time being......Comrade Obama is working hard to change that.

And others are fighting against his effort.

A quote citing Thomas Jefferson’s notion about the periodic need for
revolutions ...

"“If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really
looking toward those Second Amendment remedies.” -- Sharron Angle

(Republican candidate out to unseat Harry Reid in November)

She weighs 130# and carry's a .44 Magnum

Though, that is rapidly changing. I havn't read the texts of Patriot
act I and II, but what I've heard of them. Scares me.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

Indeed. It's precisely and specifically due to abuses such as this,
which the
British Crown has been perpetrating against its subjects for at least
a
quarter of a millennium, that our Bill of Rights places tight
restrictions on
the government's authority to carry out searches:

"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."

I thank God that I live in America, not in Britain. And that we here
are
citizens. Not subjects.

In article , "Stormin Mormon" wrote:
Though, that is rapidly changing. I havn't read the texts of Patriot
act I and II, but what I've heard of them. Scares me.

Maybe you should read them before you get scared.

(Doug Miller) wrote in
:

In article , "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Though, that is rapidly changing. I havn't read the texts of Patriot
act I and II, but what I've heard of them. Scares me.

Maybe you should read them before you get scared.


He should ask why Comrade Obama not only KEPT the Patriot Act,but removed
the sunset provision that required it be RENEWED by Congress every 5 years.
THAT should scare him.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Though, that is rapidly changing. I havn't read the texts of Patriot
act I and II, but what I've heard of them. Scares me.

Maybe you should read them before you get scared.

What? Have people actually read the bills before they get scared.
Heck, it is well documented that our CongressCritters don't even the
read the bills before voting on them! You must be a Commie. (g)

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Though, that is rapidly changing. I havn't read the texts of Patriot
act I and II, but what I've heard of them. Scares me.

You heard, in the main, hysteria.

The "Patriot Act" (PA) was not really a single law - it consisted of many
amendments to existing laws.

1. For example, prior to the PA, if the FBI wanted to wire-tap a goblin, it
must apply to a judge in the federal district where the 'phone was located.
In these days of cell and disposable phones, computers, etc. - and 52
federal districts - this became an impossible task as the squint moved about
the country. The PA now allows for a warrant to tap a PERSON rather than a
particular telephone.

2. On the morning of 9/11, federal agents fanned out over Boston to the
major hotels. They wanted to inspect the morning's check-out records. Their
working theory was that by comparing these check-out records to passenger
manifests, they might discover some link that would enable them to forestall
any other hijackings. In every case, the hotels declined to cooperate,
citing 'guest privacy' concerns. The PA extended to ALL ordinary business
transactions the force of an "administrative subpoena." Previously these
administrative subpoenas were available only to banks, financial
institutions, car rental agencies, and storage facilities. In other words,
the PA only enlarged the universe of existing law.

3. The PA specifically sanctioned eavesdropping on communications involving
a known or suspected foreign terrorist. Listening in on enemy communications
began during our Second War of Independence when both the Union and
Confederate forces tapped the telegraph lines of their opposite number.
During WWII, the British broke the Enigma code, we neutralized the Japanese
Purple Code. The PA merely sanctioned a long-standing practice. (There are
those who felt this provision was unnecessary as intercepting enemy
communications is assumed under the President's Article II powers as CinC.)

And so on with most of the other provisions.

In sum, the PA was a hodge-podge of amendments tending to modernize already
existing law. The PA itself generally broke no new ground and there were no
new concepts involved. Every amendment had, at its base, already been tested
for constitutionality. In the decade since its passage, almost none of its
provisions have been struck down on constitutional grounds.

And, like other large legislative measures, did not spring full-blown from
Athena's head. These amendments had been collecting in somebody's bottom
drawer waiting for the right 'crisis' to leap up and save the day. (You
don't think a 2,000 page health care bill was thrown together in a week, do
you?)

On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 11:07:18 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:


In the US, the case would have been tossed as the gun was the fruit of an
unlawful search.

The cops were looking for a person and persons don't hide under mattresses.

In the US, a search warrant specifying a stolen car does not give the cops
the right to look in closets or bureau drawers.

Had the gun be in plain sight, the cops here could use it, but under a
mattres

....fruit of the poisonous tree...

If the warrant states the police are searching for a white elephant,
drugs found in a match box are excluded as evidence.

In article ,
Oren wrote:


If the warrant states the police are searching for a white elephant,
drugs found in a match box are excluded as evidence.


Unless it is a HUGE matchbox (g).

--
I want to find a voracious, small-minded predator
and name it after the IRS.
Robert Bakker, paleontologist

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
harry wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/10335003.stm

Heh!

In the US, the case would have been tossed as the gun was the fruit of an
unlawful search.

The cops were looking for a person and persons don't hide under
mattresses.

In the US, a search warrant specifying a stolen car does not give the cops
the right to look in closets or bureau drawers.

Had the gun be in plain sight, the cops here could use it, but under a
mattress, no way.

Oddly enough we don't work that way with nations. When we issued ourselves
a search warrant for Iraqi WMD's, it should have specified "search
thoroughly for WMD's and leave by X date" the way most search warrants do
(at least according to our own judicial history). What we did was akin to
searching a house for a bomb or guns that someone lied to the police about
being there and when finding none, hanging the father, burning some of the
children alive and demolishing most of the house. It's so far out of line
with American legal traditions and values that it astounds me still that it
happened. A pretty wise man once said "do unto others." Pity so few
remember.

--
Bobby G.