Indiana Supreme Court: No Right to Resist Unlawful Police Entry

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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 for worrying about the election of Barack Obama. It's all just because they think he's a secret muslim.

[econ21]

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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.



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.

[Samurai Waki]

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]

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]

doubtful

That's putting it mildly.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Arm yourselves

[Louis VI the Fat]

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'?

CR

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Beirut]

Get stronger front doors.

[drone]

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

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.

[jabarto]

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]

The benefits of a GOP SCOTUS.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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-Le...s-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