School Searches in Howell

I'll start with this. I hate drugs. I hate the War on (some) Drugs more. The price to pay in the War on Drugs isn't worth the cost. 

It's a different era of school security since I was a student. We didn't have lockdown drills in my day. Things changed heavily after Columbine. Today there is an era of zero sense, I mean zero tolerance, students being arrested for pointing fingers like a gun, police involvement and criminal charges for everything, and comparisons to prison. I'd hate to be a student these days. I'd be lucky to avoid expulsion and spent enough time in the principal's office back in the day as it was. I've never been good with authority. It's why I'm not a democrat. Too many authoritarians.

One thing we all need to remember with the public school system is that these are government officials, and they all have direct lines to the police. If you are a student reading this and are accused of something that could in ANY way be a police matter, don't cooperate with the administration. You have rights, and should use them in a respectful manner. Treat them as cops, and use your 5th Amendment rights. TALK TO A LAWYER. You do not want to end up with a felony or misdemeanor on your record and following you for the rest of your life affecting your future. If it costs you a suspension for insubordination, it's a smaller price to pay than a criminal record. This is a great video here on why you don't talk to the police.

Now this story has my guard up. I don't know all the facts, so I'm admitting to speculation. From the Argus

Some Howell High School students are protesting recent lockdown drills at their school, calling them little more than random drug searches in disguise.
“The big issue is that the school is telling us something that really isn’t true,” said senior Cassie Bondie, who sent an email detailing the concerns to school officials as well as the Daily Press & Argus.
“They should just be honest,” said recent graduate Renee Augustyn of the purpose behind the lockdown drills.
But school officials say they are being as honest as they can.
During the drills, students place their backpacks in a common area for inspection.
“They are lockdown drills but we have brought drug-sniffing dogs in based on information we’ve received,” Howell Public Schools Superintendent Ron Wilson said. “Obviously, we can’t tip our hand.”
Lockdown drills are conducted to practice the procedures to be used should an intruder attempt to enter the building.
Dogs from the Michigan State Police were twice brought in this semester, Wilson said.
“A cache of marijuana” was discovered during one of the searches, he said.
“We have had searches, as have other school districts in our area,” Wilson said, adding that, other than Bondie’s letter, the searches have been conducted without criticism from students or the public.
There was not a search when there was an actual lockdown this semester when a man attempted to enter the high school after trying to enter Hartland High School.
The issue prompted a lively discussion on student Facebook pages.
Bondie and others quoted in her email say they aren’t defending illegal drug use but say the procedure violates school policy and breaks the trust between administrators and students.
Students said they were concerned that randomly searching their personal property, rather than searching suspected school lockers, was a step too far.
“I know that if it happens again, some students won’t be putting their bags out,” Bondie said.
But Wilson said the searches were well within district policies and procedures.

First off, don't do drugs or bring them into school. That said, courts have rules that dog sniffs are not a violation of the 4th Amendment as they aren't considered searches. They can lead to probable cause and a search if the German Shepherd gets a hit.

"I don't do drugs. I have nothing to hide."

If some druggie gets rid of the drugs by sticking them in your bag without you knowing, you have plenty to hide. Why would he do that? He's panicking and needs to discard evidence. Anywhere possible.


I recommend keeping the bags on you at all times in these drills or leaving them in the locker (or vehicle). If the bags are being opened up, refuse. This isn't about safety, but control.

Gun grabbers in Washington State want house to house searches for guns

The left says "Nobody wants to take your guns." That's a bald faced lie of course. I know. You know it. Everybody knows it. Those that say otherwise are lying. 

This new bill is scary. While this is supposedly a mistake, I'm skeptical of how much of a mistake it was. Words mean things. Language inserted into bills is often run by attorneys to double check matters. If this was a mistake, it got past a lot of people.

While Washington State is rather liberal, it like Oregon is not as liberal on guns as many other blue states. It's not like California, Illinois, or most of the Northeast (outside Pennsylvania, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire).

From Seattle Times

One of the major gun-control efforts in Olympia this session calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of assault-weapon owners. The bill’s backers say that was a mistake.

Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?
As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.
That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.
“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”
That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats. 

(Note to readers: The link above is to a new version of SB 5737, which no longer contains the disputed provision. The original version of the bill has been erased from the state’s Web site, but here you can see it as it was proposed.)

That's from a media editorial in the paper. As you'd guess, it's leftist, like most newspaper editorials.  Even they have a limit. Provisions like that could cause a lot of problems.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:
“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.
“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”
I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.

It's not paranoia if they are really out to get you. I'm not surprised one bit. That's what the left does. That's what big government does. More laws. More regulations. More criminalization. Obamacare makes felons of those who don't comply. Five years in prison. Why wouldn't they support house to house searches? It wouldn't be the first time.

Washington DC was pushing this back in 2008

Bill Clinton and the Butcher of Waco Janet Reno pushed warrantless searches in public housing. Remember the infamous "radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights quote?" That was referring to this.

New York State's latest gun grab banned magazines with more than 7 bullets. That covers almost all semi-automatic pistols outside of some 1911's. That also covers the classic Ruger 10/.22 Those who currently own them and don't turn them in or sell them out of state face a misdemeanor charge. What's going to happen there - house to house searches? Andrew Cuomo was part of that same Clinton administration, so it wouldn't shock me a bit.

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged in a long time, and parts I agree with and parts I don't, but one quote struck with me. It's as true as can be.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Floyd Ferris

But this hasn't been proposed federally, right?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 on behalf of myself and nine of my colleagues: Mel Reynolds, Bill Clay, Jerry Nadler, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John Lewis, Nydia Velazquez, Ron Dellums, Carrie Meek, and Alcee Hastings. This legislation, first introduced in the Senate by Senator John Chafee, would prohibit the transfer or possession of handguns and handgun ammunition, except in limited circumstances. It would go a long way toward protecting our citizens from violent crime.
The need for a ban on handguns cannot be overstated. Unlike rifles and shotguns, handguns are easily concealable. Consequently, they are the weapons of choice in most murders, accounting for the deaths of 25,000 Americans in 1991.
A 6-month grace period would be established during which time handguns could be turned in to any law enforcement agency with impunity and for reimbursement at the greater of $25 or the fair market value of the handgun . After the grace period's expiration, handguns could be turned in voluntarily with impunity from criminal prosecution, but a civil fine of $500 would be imposed.
Exemptions from the handgun ban would be permitted for Federal, State, or local government agencies, including military and law enforcement; collectors of antique firearms; federally licensed handgun sporting clubs; federally licensed professional security guard services; and federally licensed dealers, importers, or manufacturers.

The Public Health and Safety Act of 1993 represents a moderate, middle-of-the-road approach to handgun control which deserves the support of all members of Congress who want to stop gun murders now.
         --- Hon. Major R. Owens (Rep. NY, Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1993, Extension of Remarks - September 23, 1993. Congressional Record, 103rd Congress, 1993-1994)

While the 2nd Amendment in SCOTUS did rule against bans, keep in mind it was a 5-4 decision. Twice. If Scalia, Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, or Alito retire under Obama's term, we are at major risk of the DC and Chicago bans being reversed.

Nobody wants to take the guns, right? We all know the answer to that. These gun grabs need to be stopped. Our checks and balances in our political system need to be respected, and the 2nd Amendment is a major part of that.

DC Democrats hate freedom - and the 4th Amendment (House to House Searches)

From the most corrupt city in the entire country, bar none. Washington DC. Land of fascists, politicians, Marion Berry, and more often than not, the murder capital of the Western World. I should not be surprised at this on the eve of the DC v Heller oral arguments which start the 18th. This is reason 99999 why I would never live in that City. If work takes me there, I'm going to the more pro-freedom state of Virginia.

This gets my Irish up more than just about anything else

D.C. police are so eager to get guns out of the city that they're offering amnesty to people who allow officers to come into their homes and get the weapons.

Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced yesterday the Safe Homes Initiative, aimed at parents and guardians who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns. Under the deal, police target areas hit by violence and seek adults who let them search their homes for guns, with no risk of arrest. The offer also applies to drugs that turn up during the searches, police said.

The program is scheduled to start March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington. Officers will go door-to-door seeking permission to search homes for weapons. Police later plan to visit other areas, including sections of Columbia Heights in Northwest and Eckington in Northeast.

"If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it," Lanier said. "But amnesty means amnesty. We're trying to get guns and drugs off the street."

Fenty (D) and Lanier announced the plan as part of a new strategy to deal with the prevalence of firearms in a city that has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a case challenging the constitutionality of the D.C. law.

Residents who agree to the searches will be asked to sign consent forms. If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges

Gee, they aren't searching Georgetown.......wonder why? Too many lawyers there?

House to house searches piss me off more than just about anything in politics. Now, despite what you see on the TV show Cops, "consenting" to searches is not always a waiver of the 4th Amendment. If asked, I'm saying no to searches on principle. I hope someone asked gives Alan Gura a call, or at least an attorney. I'm not saying this IS a violation of the 4th Amendment in the eyes of a judge without knowing how the individuals enforce this, but to say that my guard is up here is to be an understatement.

Even if this is allowed by law, this is scary as hell. Most people don't know, don't understand, and are quick to waive their rights. Too many people have the attitude of "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of." My attitude is get a warrant first, and do not treat me like a criminal unless you have a damn good reason.

I have a few question here:

1. Do residents know that with this "amnesty", that the cops will test weapons to see if they are used in a crime?

2. If residents refuse, will the police give them more scrutiny for not cooperating?

3. Will this be over the whole city, or just in certain areas so the white liberals there do not get up in arms? (Since they don't give a damn about Anacostia and Washington Highlands unless Georgetown is hit)

I hope the residents tell them all "NO." This is high time to question authority. Now show Fenty the door for all of us. Thanks.