3d printing, and loss of rights

[Yo Mama]

Well, what are your thoughts on 3d printing resulting in loss of privacy rights? This comes as I read an article that now that the plans were downloaded so much, there is no way to stop printing. Homeland security does not like this.

The thought is out there now that the only way to tell is frisking everyone, or scanners to detect objects under clothing. Maybe the ACLU will help out on this one?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/23/govt-memo-warns-3d-printed-guns-may-be-impossible-to-stop/

 

[mgkdrgn]

there are many, cheaper easier ways for a criminal / prohibited person to make a better gun than this.

But then, they don't make the news and get DHS more authority/money.

 

[jamesbeat]

Yes, it sounds to me like Homeland Security has jumped on this as an excuse...

 

[M-Cameron]

its a good sign when the govt is scared.....it means things are working just as they are supposed to.

 

[Manco]

Yes, it sounds to me like Homeland Security has jumped on this as an excuse...

About the only positive thing that could come of expanded DHS frisking is the early detection of prostate cancer.

 

[CoRoMo]

...resulting in loss of privacy rights?

There is no explicit "right to privacy" enumerated in our Constitution. Aspects of our privacy though, are protected as in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Amendments. The government has no power to encroach upon our beliefs, our points of view, the use of our homes, the information we hold, and the government has no automatic authority to a causeless search our property.

...the only way to tell is frisking everyone, or scanners to detect objects under clothing.

At what... airports? Courthouses? The do that already in many places. When you say 'frisking everyone', it's not like they will frisk anyone walking down the street, everyone stopped for traffic violations, etc.

So this is a 4th Amendment issue; unreasonable searches of our person and/or property. What is unreasonable/reasonable has to be fought and won in court.

SCOTUS found in USA v. Place that a drug dog sniffing luggage at an airport was a reasonable search of property with less than probable cause. I don't know of another case that would take this line a step further to illustrate that today's TSA strip-downs are violating the 4th. I don't even know if Aaron Tobey's recent case was decided on the 4th or if it was the unlawful detention that brought him that win.

Many others here will know more than I.

 

[Cosmoline]

Some of those issues have not gotten to the Supremes as yet, though they have approved a broad range of searches. The circuit court rulings I've seen hold that the airports are special cases because by buying a ticket you're effectively waiving a whole bunch of rights. Airports are essentially rights-free zones now. And I think it's important to remember how this came about.

First they came for the guns. The pretext was the Cuba hijackings and a few other incidents like DB Cooper. So guns were banned from carry-on, with more and more restrictions applied and screening added. Then they quashed expression. Remember when airports were full of religious groups back in the 70's? That got shut down with extreme prejudice, which most folks applauded. But it did not take long for the rules that barred nutjob cults to be applied to you and me. So now even saying a word like "bomb" will indeed get you federal time. Then they expanded the searches at the checkpoints in the 80's in the name of the war on drugs. That took them about as far as it could, and along comes 9/11 with a whole new raft of pretexts for even broader and more invasive screenings.

There's an important pattern here. And it STARTED with the guns. There are powers that strongly desire to repeat this same process with the country at large, essentially making all public spaces in the US akin to an aiport.

 

[CoRoMo]

From the Article:

Is America ready for pat-downs at every event?"

Forget being 'ready for' it, today's America will loudly and emotionally call for the end of the 4th Amendment. After a few over-played incidents, it will be the accepted norm that by attending a public event, you are waiving a handful of your constitutional rights.

From the DHS Bulletin:

"Unqualified gun seekers may be able to acquire or manufacture their own Liberators with no background checks."

What's an 'unqualified gun seeker'? Anyway, "gun seekers" have ALWAYS been able to acquire or manufacture their own handguns with no background checks. There is no law against such behavior. This statement is nothing but an attempt to obfuscate the line demarcating what is clearly lawful.

 

[Skribs]

I still have to ask this question, which I have never gotten a good answer for from the Antis:

Why is it that you don't trust someone with firearms and have to make hundreds of thousands of laws to make sure that person doesn't get a firearm, but yet you allow this person near children, the elderly, automobiles, power tools, and pretty much every object used as an improvised weapon in a monster movie?

The firearm isn't some magical item that enables violence. The firearm is merely a tool (granted, the best tool). That doesn't mean that the recently parolled convict who has his eyes set on that neighborhood kid or that naive college girl who walks home by herself at night is going to be foiled because he can't legally obtain a gun. Whether he chooses to illegally obtain one or just simply use the cutlery you can find in every smegging house in America, he is going to have access to weapons. If we can't trust him with firearms, why do we trust him in public?

 

[armoredman]

Manco, sorry, but I stole that line - that's great.

 

[brickeyee]

it's not like they will frisk anyone walking down the street,

The mm wave technology already exists to 'frisk' every person who simply walks by the antenna panel.

 

[armoredman]

Stop and Frisk - a part of life in New York for how many years?

 

[CoRoMo]

brickeyee...

Oh, that's right. Forgot about that!