Are we there yet?

samhill wrote:I read it & there is nothing about the use of cell phones or cameras, maybe I have to get a new Jpete Edition, "The Constitution As Only I Can Interpret It".

Check the section labeled "Fourth Amendment". They are in there.

And Wal-Mart isn't covered by it but the government is.

I can't imagine how we got so far down with guys like you defending us Sam....

samhill wrote:Besides last week when they came for my guns & they killed me for non-compliance things have been pretty quiet around here at least until the first day of duck. Then too if they have to use slingshots with gravel it will stay pretty quiet. Still have the guns they couldn't find shh.

HAHAHAHA I don't care who ya are now that there's funny

Now this here aint funny.
Try to cross from PA to NJ with your guns in your gun rack. You'll get a $10,000 fine and mandatory 1 - 1/2 year sentence. But there's nothing to worry about the 2nd is totally intact where you are.

That's state laws Dann, check with your local Gov. or Jpete if you prefer the revised edition, of every state law as Jpete See's it.
Like I said Jpete my copy says nothing about cell phones or cameras, you never answered my questions.

Nor will he, clearly--he'll just quote some self interpreted foolishness.

freetown fred wrote:Nor will he, clearly--he'll just quote some self interpreted foolishness.

Where ever you go, there you are.

OUTSTANDING piece of advice, sometimes we overlook the obvious.

samhill wrote:That's state laws Dann, check with your local Gov. or Jpete if you prefer the revised edition, of every state law as Jpete See's it.
Like I said Jpete my copy says nothing about cell phones or cameras, you never answered my questions.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... 1348517773

6 plural : movable property : goods <personal effects>

So, based on the definition of "effects", is a cell phone "moveable property"?

Go like this Sam

So are cell phones protected by the 4A?

Do this again.

Is recording the conversations of every person with a cell phone "unreasonable"?

Do it again

Have I answered your question on a level a five year old could understand?

cell phones, moveable property??? If that's the best you've got, I for one am very disappointed. But I do love it when you confirm my thoughts about self serving interpretations. PS---you have answered those questions as if coming from a 5 yr old

freetown fred wrote:cell phones, moveable property??? If that's the best you've got, I for one am very disappointed. But I do love it when you confirm my thoughts about self serving interpretations. PS---you have answered those questions as if coming from a 5 yr old

Cell phones AREN'T moveable property?

Do you own it?

Is it moveable?

If the answer to both those question is then it's "moveable property"

If the answer is then things such as your car are not protected by the 4A.

Which is it?

So if I were to miss a payment on my vehicle & they came & repossesed it--would my defense be supported by the 4A ?

If you are in a public place then you are fair game, in your home? Anymore possibly even then if you leave your windows open, just look at what the Pavarotti's are getting away with. Anything that broadcasts over the airwaves can be tapped into without much trouble or expense, even back in the early days of the early big phones that were just that. You seem to only read meanings whichever way you want them to be. The way I read that you can't stick your head up my horses butt & look around without prior permission.

freetown fred wrote:So if I were to miss a payment on my vehicle & they came & repossesed it--would my defense be supported by the 4A ?

I don't know. Did you take a loan with a bank or the Federal government?

I can't imagine how we got so f*cked up with you guys defending our rights.

samhill wrote:If you are in a public place then you are fair game, in your home? Anymore possibly even then if you leave your windows open, just look at what the Pavarotti's are getting away with. Anything that broadcasts over the airwaves can be tapped into without much trouble or expense, even back in the early days of the early big phones that were just that. You seem to only read meanings whichever way you want them to be. The way I read that you can't stick your head up my horses butt & look around without prior permission.

So cops never need a warrant to tap a phone? Really?

Or just if it's a land line? You realize cell phones at some point use hard wires right?

What if I have a cordless phone? Warrant or no?

What about in a 2 party consent state? Or does law enforcement not need to follow the laws?

Thank God the banks aren't in bed w/ the Feds--I was never clear on what FDIC meant And in answer to that second statement--because there's always been know it alls in the world, the unteachable as it were.

jpete wrote:

freetown fred wrote:So if I were to miss a payment on my vehicle & they came & repossesed it--would my defense be supported by the 4A ?

I don't know. Did you take a loan with a bank or the Federal government?

I can't imagine how we got so f*cked up with you guys defending our rights.

Here we have proof that Americans love to argue For once I'm not the only one

samhill wrote:just look at what the Pavarotti's are getting away with.

HAHAHAHA those damn pavarotti's!!!

The paparazzi are even worse but who didn't want to see Kate Middleton's ta ta's hahhahahah