[reynolds357]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

If you read the entire document, it explains.

It would require infrastructure changes (the source mentions that this would be expensive) to keep microchipped persons from going where they shouldn't be. Presumably some kind of detectors would be placed on prohibited locations and would go off and/or summon the authorities if a microchipped person approached a prohibited area.

The idea is that by not tracking the person everywhere and only coming into play when the person is attempting to violate the law, it eliminates much of the concern raised by Fourth Amendment rights.

In the case of prohibited persons, perhaps gun stores could have some sort of detector that would notify the authorities if a prohibited person entered the shop, or entered the firearm area or actually attempted to purchase a firearm depending on where the detector is placed and how it works. Detectors could also be placed at the entry of gun shows, etc. So again, the prohibited person isn't being tracked all the time, they are only detected in situations that they should, by law, avoid in the first place. And that's the idea--prevention by alerting the authorities.

Implementation is peripheral to the question of constitutionality. I don't think that implementation is feasible for a number of reasons, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional, it just makes it a bad idea.

How about this? We enforce the laws we now have. We have too many laws now. We dont need more.