skankzor said:
Their biggest mistake was including gun purchases......

The NRA is probably the best hope for stopping this.

adjunct said:
How would these hold up when charges are (hypothetically) subsequently filed? Wouldn't courts be compelled to throw out evidence that is gathered without a subpoena directly related to the case?

legionnaire said:
While law enforcement agencies need to be able to investigate potential terrorists, judicial oversight, even if sometimes a rubber stamp, remains a crucial means to preserve civil liberties and stop them fom gaining too much power. Civil liberties are hard earned but often easily lost - throwing them away in the name of security would be a giant step backwards.

seanvegas said:

Exactly, since gun laws are becoming more lenient we can probably at least easily start a revolution against these tyrants!

Mike said:

I have to agree with you here. No oversight would lead to abuse very quickly.

skankzor said:

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyrany in government.
--- Thomas Jefferson

Dan76 said:
Book purchases??? Like terrorists haven't figured out how to use cash???

adjunct said:
How would these hold up when charges are (hypothetically) subsequently filed? Wouldn't courts be compelled to throw out evidence that is gathered without a subpoena directly related to the case?

It is now settled that, when an administrative agency subpoenas corporate books or records, the Fourth Amendment requires that the subpoena be sufficiently (a) limited in scope, (b) relevant in purpose, and (c) specific in directive so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome. The agency has the right to conduct all reasonable inspections of such documents which are contemplated by statute, but it must delimit the confines of a search by designating the needed documents in a formal subpoena. In addition, while the demand to inspect may be issued by the agency, in the form of an administrative subpoena, it may not be made and enforced by the inspector in the field, and the subpoenaed party may obtain judicial review of the reasonableness of the demand prior to suffering penalties for refusing to comply.

legionnaire said:

What's sad is that the people who are proposing these changes are undoubtedly doing so with good intentions, and feel as if they've been hamstrung by the system. I can definitely sympathize with them, but like you, I'm afraid that the end result will be a return to the J. Edgar Hoover days of the FBI.

monastrell said:
this is nothing new ... toying with jurisdiction and courts is an ingenious way to consequently toy with law and application to individual liberty. basically, the "law" and your protection ain't what you think it is.

discover the difference in how protected liberties are recognized in comparison to common law courts, statutory courts, equity courts, admiralty and maritime courts, and tribunals. find out which ones you are actually under jurisdiction of, where you live.

the State is nothing but effective in covering its tracks in how it determines to apply law according to the type of law it will hear in a specified court of its choosing ... you are not nearly as "free" as you think. if you want to challenge them you have to do it in a specific court that recognizes Constitutionally protected rights .... which are far fewer than you might think and are led to believe. if you want to go up one further research a little bit about "uniform commercial code - 1-207" ... the reservation of rights clause.

[Edited on May 25, 2005 by monastrell]