Indiana Supreme Court: No Right to Resist Unlawful Police Entry [Archive]

Crazed Rabbit

05-14-2011, 01:47

If the police illegally enter your house in Indiana, you have no legal right to resist. If you try to stop them, you'll be beaten or killed and charged with various crimes if you live.

News article:
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.html

Legal blog with link to actual ruling:
http://volokh.com/2011/05/13/no-right-to-assault-police-officer-entering-home-even-if-entrance-is-unlawful-indiana-supreme-court-holds/

We believe . . . that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. E.g., Warner, supra, at 330 (citing the dangers of arrest at common law—indefinite detention, lack of bail, disease-infested prisons, physical torture—as reasons for recognizing the right to resist); State v. Hobson, 577 N.W.2d 825, 835–36 (Wis. 1998) (citing the following modern developments: (1) bail, (2) prompt arraignment and determination of probable cause, (3) the exclusionary rule, (4) police department internal review and disciplinary procedure, and (5) civil remedies). We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest— as evident by the facts of this instant case. E.g., Hobson, 577 N.W.2d at 836 (“But in arrest situations that are often ripe for rapid escalation, one‘s ̳measured‘ response may fast become excessive.”

What recourse do they offer? Civil remedies; suing the city (since the cops are immune to lawsuits). So the cops can illegally enter your home, illegally beat you,

And isn't that public policy bit great? That's the important thing; public policy always overrides the constitution. Shouldn't it, after all?

And to resist an illegal invasion risks injury to the government agent breaking the constitution and the law! We can't have those brave criminals be at risk of injury! Time to trash the constitution!

The dissent (or part of it ):

[T]he common law rule supporting a citizen‘s right to resist unlawful entry into her home rests on . . . the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Indeed, “the physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585 (1980). In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations. There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.

In Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 313–14 (1958) the United States Supreme Court held that it was unlawful to arrest the defendant on criminal charges when a warrantless arrest was conducted by police officers breaking and entering the defendant‘s apartment without expressly announcing the purpose of their presence or demanding admission. In recounting the historical perspective for its holding the Court quoted eighteenth century remarks attributed to William Pitt, Earl of Chatham, on the occasion of a debate in Parliament:

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!

Id. at 307. The same is no less true today and applies equally to forces of the State.

At issue in this case is not whether [the defendant] had the right to resist unlawful police entry into his home – a proposition that the State does not even contest – but rather whether the entry was illegal in the first place, and if so, whether and to what extent Barnes could resist entry without committing a battery upon the officer. Federal Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is equal to the task of resolving these issues. In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally – that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. And that their sole remedy is to seek refuge in the civil arena. I disagree and therefore respectfully dissent.

CR

jabarto

05-14-2011, 02:53

"police department internal review and disciplinary procedure"? So when the police break the law, my recall is to...go to the police?

rory_20_uk

05-14-2011, 10:21

It makes the discussion regarding the second amendment rather pointless doesn't it?

~:smoking:

econ21

05-14-2011, 10:32

So when the police break the law, my recall is to...go to the police?

In the UK, we have an independent police complaints commission - do you have anything like that in the US?

UglyJun

05-14-2011, 10:48

ok for a few ruppees the cops go search next door :)

Banquo's Ghost

05-14-2011, 14:06

It makes the discussion regarding the second amendment rather pointless doesn't it?

~:smoking:

Certainly, it makes the debate rather more interesting.

One of the key arguments advanced for the Second Amendment is that it reserves the right of citizens to protect themselves against oppressive government. I have remarked before that US citizens - contrary to their self-perception - appear to be amongst the most docile of peoples when it comes to accepting government injustice. Whilst some of the ethnic minorities occasionally riot, the majority of the population seem supine in the face of all sorts of government interference in their rights.

Now, this may well be attributable to a healthy democracy wherein most people feel sufficiently enfranchised to change things via the ballot box. But if the Second Amendment argument is to have validity, surely the correct response to Indiana's Supreme Court decision is for home-owners to gun down policemen the moment they step illegally on their porch? Let their case be made in court after the fact? Or is it being tacitly acknowledged that owning firearms is pointless when faced with the power of a state armed to the teeth?

Louis VI the Fat

05-14-2011, 14:45

Or, perhaps some of the enormous amount of energy devoted towards maintaining a certain interpretation of the Second Amendment is spend on discrediting the police force and justice system. You know, to buttress the thought that one needs to protect one's own. And that one can't trust Washington, or any government, with this.

Protests against police abuse is both a product of the progressive, civil liberties activism, and of the hardright, and / or Second Amendment activism.

Xiahou

05-14-2011, 15:29

But if the Second Amendment argument is to have validity, surely the correct response to Indiana's Supreme Court decision is for home-owners to gun down policemen the moment they step illegally on their porch? Let their case be made in court after the fact? Or is it being tacitly acknowledged that owning firearms is pointless when faced with the power of a state armed to the teeth?Yes, that's the only logical conclusion a reasonable person could come to. :dizzy2:

Skullheadhq

05-14-2011, 15:44

Yes, that's the only logical conclusion a reasonable person could come to. :dizzy2:

I would want to see it happen, they can't do anything about it, you're just proctecting property, right America? :)

Banquo's Ghost

05-14-2011, 17:52

Yes, that's the only logical conclusion a reasonable person could come to. :dizzy2:

You might notice the question marks. The use of this punctuation indicates an enquiry, not a conclusion.

I'm interested in people's views, that's all. Kinda why I read the Backroom. :smile:

Slyspy

05-14-2011, 18:41

And isn't that public policy bit great? That's the important thing; public policy always overrides the constitution. Shouldn't it, after all?

Although I have little concern with the subject matter I do believe that you are spinning it in your favour here, if you are basing this comment on the quote that you have posted. The line is clearly "that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence". The "and" is quite important I think.

Crazed Rabbit

05-14-2011, 19:04

In the UK, we have an independent police complaints commission - do you have anything like that in the US?

Ha! Of course not. It takes police officers killing old women, lying about it, planting drugs in the house of said deceased grandmother, and then being found out for a city to even considering giving any sort of civilian council even elementary powers to review police procedures (as happened in Atlanta a couple years back.). And even then the cops will fight it tooth and nail, both the creation of such a council, as well as it's continued existence. Even then it likely doesn't have the power

I have remarked before that US citizens - contrary to their self-perception - appear to be amongst the most docile of peoples when it comes to accepting government injustice.

Two things, I think; one, it isn't happening to them and such news as I post in the Police Abuses thread rarely makes the front page. Two; a lot of people support even abusive police, on the grounds that the kid who got his arm broken for low slung pants was a punk and disrespectful to police, or will eagerly support violations of their liberties in the name of safety.

Part of that is decades of conditioning that the government is right and should be respected at all times, that obeying them is the civilized thing to do, and that liberty should be balanced with safety - in a way that always slides towards more and more 'safety'.

Is the US more docile? I'm not sure that's the case.

Government control over our life shows no signs of slowing (the FBI wants to put GPS trackers on any (and when they have the tech, all) car(s) in America without warrant). The question is if people will reach a breaking point or if they'll just...keep...submitting...

CR

Skullheadhq

05-15-2011, 10:05

Government control over our life shows no signs of slowing (the FBI wants to put GPS trackers on any (and when they have the tech, all) car(s) in America without warrant). The question is if people will reach a breaking point or if they'll just...keep...submitting...

CR

Kilometerkastje, hè Frag?

Furunculus

05-15-2011, 10:35

In the UK, we have an independent police complaints commission - do you have anything like that in the US?

in the UK we now have as many as 1200 primary and secondary mechanisms by which the state can force entry to private property.

sadly, the englishmans castle is no longer, and it is in significant measure labours fault.

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter; the rain may enter; but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!"

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/legislation/protection-freedoms-bill/#

rory_20_uk

05-15-2011, 11:51

The police only need a couple of them really - if they suspect a child is in danger they can break down the front door - no child? Oh, sorry - but we thought there might have been one...

Labour is of the overriding opinion that the State knows better than the individual. It is a shame that the ConDems do not appear to be rescinding any of them - few politicians will give up power, wherever it came from.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

05-15-2011, 12:24

well, apparently they are getting rid of some:

powers of entry – there are some 1,200 separate powers of entry contained in a mix of primary and secondary legislation. The bill creates three order-making powers to: (1) enable a minister of the crown (or the Welsh ministers) to repeal unnecessary powers of entry and associated powers; (2) consolidate a group of existing powers; or (3) attach additional safeguards to the exercise of such powers, including in particular provision requiring prior authorisation by a magistrates’ court. Provisions are also made for a code of practice governing the exercise of powers of entry

but when there are 1200 it swiftly becomes a question of whether it will be enough to make a difference........

Seamus Fermanagh

05-17-2011, 01:44

Or, perhaps some of the enormous amount of energy devoted towards maintaining a certain interpretation of the Second Amendment is spend on discrediting the police force and justice system. You know, to buttress the thought that one needs to protect one's own. And that one can't trust Washington, or any government, with this....

Well, cher Louis, our higest court have already ruled that the police have no obligation to defend you and yours (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html). Our 2nd ammendment "hawks" are not that off base regarding the need to protect one's own.

PanzerJaeger

05-17-2011, 04:34

Certainly, it makes the debate rather more interesting.

One of the key arguments advanced for the Second Amendment is that it reserves the right of citizens to protect themselves against oppressive government. I have remarked before that US citizens - contrary to their self-perception - appear to be amongst the most docile of peoples when it comes to accepting government injustice. Whilst some of the ethnic minorities occasionally riot, the majority of the population seem supine in the face of all sorts of government interference in their rights.

Now, this may well be attributable to a healthy democracy wherein most people feel sufficiently enfranchised to change things via the ballot box. But if the Second Amendment argument is to have validity, surely the correct response to Indiana's Supreme Court decision is for home-owners to gun down policemen the moment they step illegally on their porch? Let their case be made in court after the fact? Or is it being tacitly acknowledged that owning firearms is pointless when faced with the power of a state armed to the teeth?

I believe the thought process surrounding that aspect of the 2nd Amendment argument is focused more towards a subversion of the democratic process rather than individual resistance to the state, which can be expressed in any number of other ways (ballot, activism, ect.).

Libya is a interesting example of the kind of situation some gun rights activists envision. Had the population been better armed and more familiar with weaponry, the rebellion may not have crumbled and necessitated NATO assistance.

Louis VI the Fat

05-17-2011, 05:12

Well, cher Louis, our higest court have already ruled that the police have no obligation to defend you and yours (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html). Our 2nd ammendment "hawks" are not that off base regarding the need to protect one's own.See, this shows why Clinton was a great president, and Reagan a poor one. The Clinton judge gave preference to the obligation of the law to protect against domestic violence. The Reagan judge to limiting the role of the government.

It is a self-fullfilling process. The role of the government in law enforcement is reduced, structurally chiselled away by gun activists. Consequently, the need for private protection increases. With the government being more incapable of even fullfilling its most basic duty of protection, trust erodes further, so the role of government is reduced, etc.

It is the NRA which feeds public discourse with terminology such as 'jackbooted thugs', which draws attention to police brutality, to government incompetence in keeping its own in check. There is no dividing line, only a gradual escalation of rhetoric, between civic concern over police brutality, to NRA activism, to anti-government militias and terrorists. In America's hardright, everybody is just a law-abiding citizen, forever at risk from the real enemy, the jackbooted federal thugs with a badge.

Me, I'm allergic to authority and have issues with the abuse of power. It is a progressive, liberal concern. There is a large overlap in that with the right, which is great. But also, sadly, an overlap which is slightly less palatabe, namely with the hardright, extremism, gun activism.

'I don't feel good: I'm ready to kill a police officer (http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_91db5db4-1b74-11e0-ba23-001cc4c002e0.html)! I can say it' - that's the echo of the hardright's escalated rhetoric, as parroted by the mentally instable, just before they go on a shooting rampage against congresswomen or others connected with the federal government or law enforcement.

Crazed Rabbit

05-17-2011, 05:24

Louis, maybe you could show me where American cops are referred to as 'jackbooted thugs' by the NRA.

CR

Louis VI the Fat

05-17-2011, 05:40

Louis, maybe you could show me where American cops are referred to as 'jackbooted thugs' by the NRA.

CRNot an off-hand remark said in a heated debate. But a quite deliberatly chosen phrasing, in line with the NRA's policy to escalate political rhetoric with the goal of thereby shifting the entire political discourse to the right, to an anti-government stance, and pro private gun ownership.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/20/us/nra-stands-by-criticism-of-president.html
Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, the Republican presidential candidate, also has urged the N.R.A. to engage in more civil discourse. Five years ago, Mr. Bush's father, former President Bush, resigned from the gun organization after Mr. LaPierre signed a fund-raising letter that referred to federal agents as ''jackbooted government thugs,'' a comment for which he later apologized.

PanzerJaeger

05-17-2011, 08:10

Louis VI the Fat

05-17-2011, 16:22

Sigh...

Louis is using one fundraising letter printed in 1995... yes, 1995 (http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19950518&slug=2121718)... and later recanted to support his long debunked Gabby Giffords position.

And yes, the ATF were acting like jackbooted thugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege) during the Clinton years. The language was appropriate.Neither Griffords nor Waco itself are the issue. These episodes merely serve to provide concrete, clear examples from a period dating from 1995 to 2011, serving to highlight a political process of decades.

It is about the escalating hardright political discourse. In particular pertaining to their portrayal of abuse of power by law enforcement agencies.

Anti-power abuse activism simply is is in itself commendable, but there is an overlap with militias-NRA-hardright extremism, which has engaged in a long standing project of paranoid discrediting of the federal government and its law enforcement.

The National Rifle Association has apologized for a recent fund-raising letter that described some federal agents as "jack-booted thugs."
"If anyone thought the intention was to paint all federal law-enforcement officials with the same broad brush, I'm sorry, and I apologize," LaPierre said yesterday.

The apology drew cautious approval from Attorney General Janet Reno today.
"I trust that the level of communication now will go forward in a thoughtful and respectful way," she said.See, the thing is, the NRA always washes its hands off of its extreme wing, always claiming the central organisation had nothing to do with it, somewhat distancing itself from it, only for the entire show to happily continue, ever seeking to further radicalise public discourse.

1995: The letter, sent to the NRA's 3.5 million members in March over LaPierre's signature, referred to federal law-enforcement agents as "jack-booted government thugs" and said that "in Clinton's administration, if you have a badge, you have the government's go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.

2009: The same paranoia, the same apocalyptic visions. The same imagery of besiegement by the federal government, a permanent Waco. A call to arms, to 'prepare for the storm'.

https://img859.imageshack.us/img859/3386/nrapreparestorm.jpg

Slyspy

05-17-2011, 20:21

Insure your gun rights?

Tellos Athenaios

05-17-2011, 21:29

Yes, the NRA is just like other insurance companies: if you regularly pay the NRA a fee for their service, they have some way not to pay up when you come calling.

Louis VI the Fat

05-17-2011, 22:19

'Insure your gun rights', not insurance, but politically, in this example of 2009 against the crypto-Muslim manchurian candidate. Who'll turn America into a Marxist state by first making opposition impossible by taking your guns away. Leaving you defenseless. You have to arm yourself against it, or it'll be too late. This clash is the storm you need to prepare yourelf for. Preparation by organising a front against the storm, let's say, a stormfront.

Or something like that. Whatever it is they think they are doing in their militia drills.

Hosakawa Tito

05-17-2011, 23:22

This will eventually end up before the US Supreme Court and be overturned. It's a clear violation of our 4th Amendment rights. Seems the excuse that it will lessen the chance of violence may be a bit premature. Indiana Court Receives Death Threats (http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/indiana-supreme-court-receives-death-threats-following-controversial-decision).

PanzerJaeger

05-17-2011, 23:47

Neither Griffords nor Waco itself are the issue. These episodes merely serve to provide concrete, clear examples from a period dating from 1995 to 2011, serving to highlight a political process of decades.

And yet, the Giffords episode had absolutely nothing to do with the NRA or right wing politics in general, as we have been over countless times.

It is about the escalating hardright political discourse. In particular pertaining to their portrayal of abuse of power by law enforcement agencies.

Anti-power abuse activism simply is is in itself commendable, but there is an overlap with militias-NRA-hardright extremism, which has engaged in a long standing project of paranoid discrediting of the federal government and its law enforcement.

See, the thing is, the NRA always washes its hands off of its extreme wing, always claiming the central organisation had nothing to do with it, somewhat distancing itself from it, only for the entire show to happily continue, ever seeking to further radicalise public discourse.

1995: The letter, sent to the NRA's 3.5 million members in March over LaPierre's signature, referred to federal law-enforcement agents as "jack-booted government thugs" and said that "in Clinton's administration, if you have a badge, you have the government's go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.

2009: The same paranoia, the same apocalyptic visions. The same imagery of besiegement by the federal government, a permanent Waco. A call to arms, to 'prepare for the storm'.

I really admire your ability to create a narrative, seemingly out of whole cloth. You can connect random points into a coherent storyline and then infuse said story with a sense of certainty that makes it sound not only legitimate, but old hat as well. It is quite an extraordinary talent; one which I have tried and failed to master to your level. However, in this instance, your knowledge of the American gun rights debate has let you down.

When Clinton was sworn in, he launched the greatest assault on gun rights in America in recent memory. He signed gun bans, sued gun manufacturers, and emboldened the ATF through new directives and new funding to treat gun owners essentially as criminals to be proven innocent instead of the other way around. Gun shops were raided with attack dogs and flash grenades on the slightest hint of impropriety, their owners never recompensed for the lost business and damage to their property regardless of their innocence. And individual gun owners were subjected to enhanced government scrutiny, harassed, and thrown in jail for minor mistakes in paperwork. Then came the tragedy of Waco, where Americans saw the ATF and their government use tanks to kill scores of women and children and destroy a community that was not threatening anyone - all over the ATF's heavy-handed approach to gun law enforcement.

This was all a bit of a shock for the NRA, which after years of patronage from both Republican and Democratic politicians was more of a social club than a proper special interest group. It was more focused on hosting shooting tournaments and gala dinners than actually fighting to preserve gun rights. And yes, for a brief period in the mid-90s, the group did engage in some limited anti-government rhetoric, culminating in the fundraising letter in response to the mass slaughter at Waco.

However, this is where your narrative of 'escalating hardright political discourse' falls apart, at least in relation to the NRA. The discourse has, in fact, de-escalated. The Oklahoma City Bombing and the changing political winds made sure of that. The group long ago abandoned any generalized anti-government rhetoric and instead focused on legitimate political and legal advocacy. In fact, the NRA is now partnered with many state and federal agencies to teach proper gun safety and operation classes.

In essence, you would have a point if we were living in, say, 1998, but at this late stage, the foundation of your narrative is ancient history - abandoned long ago.

https://img859.imageshack.us/img859/3386/nrapreparestorm.jpg

You seem to be equating that poster with the 'jackbooted thugs' fundraising letter, which does not stand up to scrutiny. It's message is essentially "Join the NRA and/or give us money because the anti-gun party has now taken power and we can expect them to challenge gun rights", which is completely legitimate.

Show me an interpretation of the poster that makes any kind of generalized anti-government statement. I just don't see it.

'Insure your gun rights', not insurance, but politically, in this example of 2009 against the crypto-Muslim manchurian candidate. Who'll turn America into a Marxist state by first making opposition impossible by taking your guns away. Leaving you defenseless. You have to arm yourself against it, or it'll be too late. This clash is the storm you need to prepare yourelf for. Preparation by organising a front against the storm, let's say, a stormfront.

Or something like that. Whatever it is they think they are doing in their militia drills.

Indeed, people concerned with gun rights have no legitimate grounds (http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm) for worrying about the election of Barack Obama. It's all just because they think he's a secret muslim. :rolleyes:

econ21

05-18-2011, 00:05

Show me an interpretation of the poster that makes any kind of generalized anti-government statement. I just don't see it.

It's not just Louis who sees it, Panzer. "Prepare for the storm!" as a slogan would fit better on one of your militaria signatures than on political campaigning material for a peaceful mature democracy. I agree with Louis - that poster is so like the pre-Grifford cross-hairs material, it's uncanny. The dogwhistling is defeaning.

Louis VI the Fat

05-18-2011, 00:25

This was all a bit of a shock for the NRA, which after years of patronage from both Republican and Democratic politicians was more of a social club than a proper special interest group. It was more focused on hosting shooting tournaments and gala dinners than actually fighting to preserve gun rights. And yes, for a brief period in the mid-90s, the group did engage in some limited anti-government rhetoric, culminating in the fundraising letter in response to the mass slaughter at Waco.

However, this is where your narrative of 'escalating hardright political discourse' falls apart, at least in relation to the NRA. The discourse has, in fact, de-escalated.

In fact, the NRA is now partnered with many state and federal agencies to teach proper gun safety and operation classes. We agree that gun advocacy movement radicalised in the early nineties. We disagree about later developments. The militia movement is well past its heyday of the nineties. But not, I think, because their thought has evaporated. On the contrary, I think their radical, extreme thought has managed to become mainstream. Indeed, that much of their concepts have driven a radicalisation of the right in general. The Teaparty in many ways is the spiritual heir.
The NRA has been one of the driving forces behind the radicalisation of the hardright, and of the shift to the hardright of rightwing political thought. The relationship is not the other way round. It is the NRA/gun lobby which feeds the hardright, not the hardright which feeds the gun movement.

It all culminated in the SC's rulings of 2008 and 2010, which constitute a breach with two centuries of thought, and which presented a complete victory for the pro-gun lobby. It is not the gun lobby which has been tamed, it is the gun lobby which has tamed the government. Personally, I find it a shocking development that 'the NRA is now partnered with many state and federal agencies to teach proper gun safety and operation classes'. De-escalation alright, but a de-escalation by way of the NRA taming the opposition, by disarming gun control.

PanzerJaeger

05-18-2011, 01:27

It's not just Louis who sees it, Panzer. "Prepare for the storm!" as a slogan would fit better on one of your militaria signatures than on political campaigning material for a peaceful mature democracy. I agree with Louis - that poster is so like the pre-Grifford cross-hairs material, it's uncanny. The dogwhistling is defeaning.

Obviously you weren't around for the Bush years. :grin:

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/defend_xsm.gif

I just don't read any violent anti-government rhetoric in the poster. It is very clearly political in nature. The 'storm' is obviously alluding to the Democratic domination of the presidency and the legislative branches coming into 2009. That kind of "your rights are in jeopardy, send us money to protect them!" language is common among groups on both sides. Are pressure groups allowed any creative license in their fundraising initiatives?

We agree that gun advocacy movement radicalised in the early nineties. We disagree about later developments. The militia movement is well past its heyday of the nineties. But not, I think, because their thought has evaporated. On the contrary, I think their radical, extreme thought has managed to become mainstream. Indeed, that much of their concepts have driven a radicalisation of the right in general. The Teaparty in many ways is the spiritual heir.
The NRA has been one of the driving forces behind the radicalisation of the hardright, and of the shift to the hardright of rightwing political thought. The relationship is not the other way round. It is the NRA/gun lobby which feeds the hardright, not the hardright which feeds the gun movement.

It all culminated in the SC's rulings of 2008 and 2010, which constitute a breach with two centuries of thought, and which presented a complete victory for the pro-gun lobby. It is not the gun lobby which has been tamed, it is the gun lobby which has tamed the government. Personally, I find it a shocking development that 'the NRA is now partnered with many state and federal agencies to teach proper gun safety and operation classes'. De-escalation alright, but a de-escalation by way of the NRA taming the opposition, by disarming gun control.

I would argue that the TEA Party movement is a spiritual heir of the Reagan Revolution, and by extension, the ideas proposed by Barry Goldwater and the original conservative movement against the Great Society.

Now it can be argued that the short lived militia movement of the 90's was a radicalized offshoot of that movement, but it would be hard to argue that the militia movement transcended into mainstream American politics in any way, shape, or form. As mentioned, the OKC bombing relegated it to the fringes for the foreseeable future.

Anyway, what can I say - that's democracy. Two sides emerged, one pro-gun rights and one anti. The popular support, money, law, and votes were all on the side of the pro movement which eventually won the ideological battle, at least for the time being. And now the focus has shifted to where it should have been all along - on preventing illegal gun use and ownership instead of dismantling a long established constitutional right, and gun crime statistics reflect the wisdom of that approach. :shrug:

Samurai Waki

05-18-2011, 01:41

Right now is simply a bad time to pretend we can resolve our problems with guns, an armed uprising in the states is likely to go very, very badly for those who aren't on the side of the law, whether it's an unconstitutional law or not... Media will likely make the group out to be extremists, and homeland security is pretty good on picking up on organisations that plot these kinds of actions before it ever happens. What has been happening in the Middle East would be probably be a better route to go than one of violent revolution.

Crazed Rabbit

05-18-2011, 02:49

So Louis, for all your fancy-pants talkin' and whatnot, you've got no example of where the NRA called cops - as in police officers and not the ATF - 'jackbooted thugs'?

It all culminated in the SC's rulings of 2008 and 2010, which constitute a breach with two centuries of thought

I don't think that could be correct in any context.

Also, I find it amusing you describe the NRA as hard-right. In the pro-gun movement many folks consider them to willing to compromise, as opposed to, say, the Gun Owners of America.

This will eventually end up before the US Supreme Court and be overturned.

I'm afraid I find that doubtful.

CR

jabarto

05-18-2011, 03:43

doubtful

That's putting it mildly.

ICantSpellDawg

05-18-2011, 04:58

Arm yourselves

Strike For The South

05-18-2011, 06:48

https://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3449/beararms7.jpg (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/339/beararms7.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (https://imageshack.us)

the ideas proposed by Barry Goldwater and the original conservative movement against the Great Society.

The modern conservative movement has its roots first and foremost with the old-stock blue blood anti new dealers who provided the intellectual captial, which could only be capitialized upon when the south defected because black people were tired of being lynched and beaten

PanzerJaeger

05-18-2011, 07:13

The modern conservative movement has its roots first and foremost with the old-stock blue blood anti new dealers who provided the intellectual captial, which could only be capitialized upon when the south defected because black people were tired of being lynched and beaten

This new found obsession with race and the South isn't healthy. Mr. Kruse's book was myopic at best, and certainly shouldn't be used as a singular foundation for one's understanding of modern conservatism. ~:(

Strike For The South

05-18-2011, 07:25

This new found obsession with race and the South isn't healthy. Mr. Kruse's book was myopic at best, and certainly shouldn't be used as a singular foundation for one's understanding of modern conservatism. ~:(
Oh geeze I post one book in the monastery and it gets thrown back at me ~:)

It is not a singular foundation but it rings really true. The south didn't defect becuase the dems went lib, I mean some of the biggest new deal supporters were poor southern whites. The first champions of big goverment if you will. It is only when the arm of government is used against their aparthiaed lite social structure does it begin to change. You also conviently leave out the first part of post where I talk about the anti-new dealers whom provided the intellectual capitial. The south was merley a vessel for manpower, no true ideas came from them they were all imported from other parts of America.

People like Phyllis Schalfy, Goldwater, and even Rockefeller fermented the IDEAS but you certainly don't have a Reagan revo without a south firmly in your corner and race is a big part of that, thier is no denying that

obessison? Do I dare mention a certain war? LOL. We all have our PASSIONS, obessions make me sound stalkerish....of course so do the police reports from old girlfriends

BA DUM TISH

a completely inoffensive name

05-18-2011, 07:27

This new found obsession with race and the South isn't healthy. Mr. Kruse's book was myopic at best, and certainly shouldn't be used as a singular foundation for one's understanding of modern conservatism. ~:(

Modern conservatism is a bunch of elites gaining support of the religious, the bigoted and a good portion of independents by abusing the language of classical liberalism to gain political power in order to secure their own financial interests at the expense of the public. They implement religious based social policies in order to placate such public so that they do not appear to look like charlatans.

The days of Goldwater, Nixon and Buckley are dead and the intellectual basis behind modern conservatism is non existent. Modern conservatism needs to be eradicated and replaced with libertarianism, which is much closer to the classical liberalism that the average joe wants when he votes GOP.

Modern liberalism is exactly the same but opposite. More financial abuse at the expense of the public but with more progressive social policies enforced to placate the base.

It's never the Fed, net neutrality, internet copyright laws or the regulation of financial derivatives that get shoved upon the people to argue about. It is always God, guns, gays, abortion.

PanzerJaeger

05-18-2011, 07:51

Oh geeze I post one book in the monastery and it gets thrown back at me ~:)

At least I'm paying attention. ~;)

It is not a singular foundation but it rings really true. The south didn't defect becuase the dems went lib, I mean some of the biggest new deal supporters were poor southern whites.

"Lib" entails more than just economic positions. The problem with Kruse's book is that it too focuses on one issue.

obessison? Do I dare mention a certain war? LOL.

Hehe, thank you for pointing out that enormous glass structure that I seem to be occupying. :grin:

Modern conservatism is a bunch of elites gaining support of the religious, the bigoted and a good portion of independents by abusing the language of classical liberalism to gain political power in order to secure their own financial interests at the expense of the public. They implement religious based social policies in order to placate such public so that they do not appear to look like charlatans.

The days of Goldwater, Nixon and Buckley are dead and the intellectual basis behind modern conservatism is non existent. Modern conservatism needs to be eradicated and replaced with libertarianism, which is much closer to the classical liberalism that the average joe wants when he votes GOP.

Modern liberalism is exactly the same but opposite. More financial abuse at the expense of the public but with more progressive social policies enforced to placate the base.

It's never the Fed, net neutrality, internet copyright laws or the regulation of financial derivatives that get shoved upon the people to argue about. It is always God, guns, gays, abortion.

I agree to a certain extent that both sides are caricatures of their former, more ideologically pure, movements. Most of what is argued about has long since been decided, but still tugs at people's emotions and thus their wallets.

Strike For The South

05-18-2011, 07:53

The issue of race?

Race is merley the underpinnig for the ideoligical shift.

Mambo#5 just came on pandora

This post ends here

a completely inoffensive name

05-18-2011, 08:18

I agree to a certain extent that both sides are caricatures of their former, more ideologically pure, movements. Most of what is argued about has long since been decided, but still tugs at people's emotions and thus their wallets.

I am currently taking my sweet time going through F. A. Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" because I am lazy and love video games, but I have already been hit hard with a passage I will not forget for a long time from the 1956 foreword:

"It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, he has hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals. But the true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege. The essence of the liberal position, however, is the denial of all privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others."

Beirut

05-18-2011, 11:21

Get stronger front doors. :yes:

drone

05-18-2011, 16:52

This ruling doesn't matter anymore, because SCOTUS has just made every warrantless police entry "legal". The 4th no longer applies.
Supreme Court OKs warrantless searches (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2015072154_scotus17.html)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave police more leeway to break into homes or apartments in search of illegal drugs when they suspect the evidence might be destroyed.

The justices said officers who smell marijuana and loudly knock on the door may break in if they hear sounds that suggest the residents are scurrying to hide the drugs.

Residents who "attempt to destroy evidence have only themselves to blame" when police burst in, Justice Samuel Alito said for an 8-1 majority.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that she feared the ruling in a Kentucky case had handed the police an important new tool.

"The court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases," Ginsburg wrote. "In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant."
If a cop wants to bust down a door, they now have the excuse. Yeah, this won't get abused, not one bit. :rolleyes:

jabarto

05-18-2011, 20:03

So is the Supreme Court just dispensing with any notions of secrecy and instead trying to publicly become as cartoonishly evil as possible?

Because that's what it looks like to me.

a completely inoffensive name

05-19-2011, 01:12

The benefits of a GOP SCOTUS.

Louis VI the Fat

05-19-2011, 04:25

The benefits of a GOP SCOTUS.Indeed. Well done.

Serves people right for voting Conservative - as is customary, soon the government will break down your door to ensure proper morals are followed in your household.

Modern conservatism is a bunch of elites gaining support of the religious, the bigoted and a good portion of independents by abusing the language of classical liberalism to gain political power in order to secure their own financial interests at the expense of the public. They implement religious based social policies in order to placate such public so that they do not appear to look like charlatans.

The days of Goldwater, Nixon and Buckley are dead and the intellectual basis behind modern conservatism is non existent. Modern conservatism needs to be eradicated and replaced with libertarianism, which is much closer to the classical liberalism that the average joe wants when he votes GOP.But is this true?

If it is libertarianism that Average Joe really wants, then why do the charlatans use social conservatism to lure Average Joe, instead of luring him with...his beloved libertarianism? Especially when this libertarianism is much closer to those financial interests of the charlatans than social conservatism. A libertarianism which apparantly is what both Average Joe and Average Charlatan really want.

What if Joe and Jane Sixpack simply really are interested in God, guns and some healthy patriotism? At least more than in regulation of financial derivatives and internet copyrights. Concepts which they know they have no firm grasp of, and which they therefore deem best entrusted in the hands of people with the same basic moral outlook as themselves. That is, God-fearing patriots.

Louis VI the Fat

05-19-2011, 04:55

So Louis, for all your fancy-pants talkin' and whatnot, you've got no example of where the NRA called cops - as in police officers and not the ATF - 'jackbooted thugs'?

CRPossibly. My Google-fu failed me, I did not find the original letter. I guess it depends on what one makes of the passage refering to 'if you have a badge...' It does not seem to refer solely to the ATF to me: The letter, sent to the NRA's 3.5 million members in March over LaPierre's signature, referred to federal law-enforcement agents as "jack-booted government thugs" and said that "in Clinton's administration, if you have a badge, you have the government's go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.

Crazed Rabbit

05-19-2011, 07:49

The benefits of a GOP SCOTUS.

It's not just the GOP if the vote was 8-1. The issue decided was not quite as dire as made out above, though it still offends me.

Oh, and back to Indiana, welcome to the police state:
http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

Speaking under the condition of anonymity, a local city Police Chief with 30 years experience in law enforcement directly contradicted the Newton County Sheriff’s blatant disregard for privacy & liberty, stating that as an American first, such an action is unconscionable and that his allegiance is to the Indiana and federal Constitutions respectively. However, he also concurred that the ruling does now allow for police to randomly search homes should a department be under order by state or federal officials or under a department’s own accord.

At this time we are still awaiting comments from several state offices.

Possibly. My Google-fu failed me, I did not find the original letter. I guess it depends on what one makes of the passage refering to 'if you have a badge...' It does not seem to refer solely to the ATF to me: The letter, sent to the NRA's 3.5 million members in March over LaPierre's signature, referred to federal law-enforcement agents as "jack-booted government thugs" and said that "in Clinton's administration, if you have a badge, you have the government's go-ahead to harass, intimidate, even murder law-abiding citizens.

There's a significant difference between federal agents and cops.

CR

a completely inoffensive name

05-19-2011, 08:11

But is this true?

If it is libertarianism that Average Joe really wants, then why do the charlatans use social conservatism to lure Average Joe, instead of luring him with...his beloved libertarianism? Especially when this libertarianism is much closer to those financial interests of the charlatans than social conservatism. A libertarianism which apparantly is what both Average Joe and Average Charlatan really want.

What if Joe and Jane Sixpack simply really are interested in God, guns and some healthy patriotism? At least more than in regulation of financial derivatives and internet copyrights. Concepts which they know they have no firm grasp of, and which they therefore deem best entrusted in the hands of people with the same basic moral outlook as themselves. That is, God-fearing patriots.

Libertarianism isn't what they want, it is just closer to what they want then modern conservatism. They want classical liberalism.

The charlatans do use libertarianism which tries to model classical liberalism to lure the average joe. Liberty, freedom, choice, all are buzzwords taken from classical liberalism that are held in high esteem by libertarianism abused by modern conservatism.

Libertarianism isn't what the financial interests want. Right now they have it worked it out as socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Libertarians are hardcore with their beliefs that government is the source of any corporate power over the citizen, so keep the two completely separate. Including letting all the banks fail in 2008 crash. This would mean capitalism for both the rich and the poor. The US is not how it was during the Gilded Age. There are no more tariffs on foreign goods and companies compete with the entire world now. They depend on subsidies and bailouts to survive. Thus libertarianism threatens them.

The average moderate voter are interested in all those things, but are interested in economic matters as well. Both sides push the social topics on everyone to keep them from talking about the economic matters. Average voters back in the late 1800s did not have much knowledge about the economic implications or theories about the choice between free silver vs gold backing of the dollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_silver), and yet it influence if not determined many elections.

a completely inoffensive name

05-19-2011, 08:20

It's not just the GOP if the vote was 8-1. The issue decided was not quite as dire as made out above, though it still offends me.
CR

5 of the supreme court justices were placed by Reagan, Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. All three had contempt for impartiality and placed very conservative justices on the court to counter the "activist judges" with their own.

2 of the justices were placed by Clinton, and again those two that were put there were heavily rallied against by the GOP who pushed against any sort of "activist judge" which meant any sort of judge not conservative. Ginsburg as far as I can tell, has been a repeat of Warren, who was placed there to be a conservative by Eisenhower, only to make more liberal decisions, much to Eisenhower's frustration.

The last two that Obama has placed has been the same thing. Conservatives crying about activist judges to the point where they forced Obama to choose moderate candidates that have streaks of both in them, depending on the topic.

The SCOTUS really has been manipulated by the GOP for many years now, and to deny that is shaky ground imo.