The below appearing article from today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, see my comments

alan · June 20, 2011, 01:15 PM

The following, and my comments might bear on BATFE's gun running (Operation Fast and Furious), discussed elsewhere on ths site.

Random searches subject of appeal
Monday, June 20, 2011
By Gina Passarella, The Legal Intelligencer
The state Supreme Court has granted an appeal from a gun court defendant challenging the constitutionality of random, suspicionless searches of his home as part of his probation.

In Commonwealth v. Wilson, a sharply divided state Superior Court en banc panel affirmed last December part of a Philadelphia gun court's sentence authorizing random, warrantless weapons searches as a condition of probation but unanimously struck down another portion of the sentence authorizing the same as a condition of parole. The parole condition was not raised on appeal and is not part of the Supreme Court's order granting allocatur.

Mr. Wilson's attorney, Victor E. Rauch of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, declined to comment.

Gina Passarella: 215-557-2494 or [email protected]. For more articles like this, please visit www.thelegalintelligencer.com.

First published on June 20, 2011 at 12:00 am

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11171...#ixzz1Pq8gFHOT

Re the above article, the following is a Letter To The Editor sent today.

Editor:

One can, if they so choose, parse the words of Pennsylvania law without end, activity that various state courts seem to have involved themselves in. Having said that, and recognizing that "a felon in possession of a handgun" they being the facts of the matter here, is a violation of existing federal law, the following question looms large.

Given that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is charged with the enforcement of federal firearms law, where are they in the Wilson case, where indeed? Also, given that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is tasked with, among other things, prosecuting violations of federal law, where are they?

It appears that BATFE is occupied with a scheme for running guns into Mexico, Operation Fast and Furious, which has become the subject of congressional hearings. As for DOJ, they seem occupied with stonewalling said congressional inquiries, and generally providing political cover for BATFE's latest screw-up via non-complacence with congressional requests for data. Given this, one supposes that a prime-facie case of a convicted felon in possession of a handgun is merely bothersome trivia, never mind that same constitutes a serious violation of existing federal law.

Respecting the fact that we are currently living under the Democratic Administration of President Obama, might the foregoing be an example of the "change you can believe in", which Obama so often spoke of, one wonders, though looking at the historical record, Republicans haven't seemed all that concerned with reining in the antics of the run away mob that is the BATFE either. What the hell, all else having failed, there are always the rights and prerogatives of the law abiding to be attacked.

In conclusion, re BATFE gun running (Operation Fast an Furious), and the part played therein by the DOJ, one of America's Great Newspapers, allegedly the Pgh. P-G has, it seems, been strangely silent. How come this?

**Aguila Blanca** · June 20, 2011, 01:25 PM

I'm confused.

What does the BATFE running guns to Mexico have to do with Pennsylvania state courts not being in agreement as to the constitutionality of checking parolees and probationers for guns without a warrant?

Al Norris · June 20, 2011, 01:55 PM

First, it is a violation of copyright law to quote an entire (or even most) of an article. Closed on that account alone.

Second, the comments have nothing to do with the article copied. Closed on that account.

June 20, 2011, 01:15 PM	#1
alan Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 1999 Posts: 3,847	The below appearing article from today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, see my comments The following, and my comments might bear on BATFE's gun running (Operation Fast and Furious), discussed elsewhere on ths site. Random searches subject of appeal Monday, June 20, 2011 By Gina Passarella, The Legal Intelligencer The state Supreme Court has granted an appeal from a gun court defendant challenging the constitutionality of random, suspicionless searches of his home as part of his probation. In Commonwealth v. Wilson, a sharply divided state Superior Court en banc panel affirmed last December part of a Philadelphia gun court's sentence authorizing random, warrantless weapons searches as a condition of probation but unanimously struck down another portion of the sentence authorizing the same as a condition of parole. The parole condition was not raised on appeal and is not part of the Supreme Court's order granting allocatur. Mr. Wilson's attorney, Victor E. Rauch of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, declined to comment. Gina Passarella: 215-557-2494 or [email protected]. For more articles like this, please visit www.thelegalintelligencer.com. First published on June 20, 2011 at 12:00 am Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11171...#ixzz1Pq8gFHOT Re the above article, the following is a Letter To The Editor sent today. Editor: One can, if they so choose, parse the words of Pennsylvania law without end, activity that various state courts seem to have involved themselves in. Having said that, and recognizing that "a felon in possession of a handgun" they being the facts of the matter here, is a violation of existing federal law, the following question looms large. Given that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is charged with the enforcement of federal firearms law, where are they in the Wilson case, where indeed? Also, given that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is tasked with, among other things, prosecuting violations of federal law, where are they? It appears that BATFE is occupied with a scheme for running guns into Mexico, Operation Fast and Furious, which has become the subject of congressional hearings. As for DOJ, they seem occupied with stonewalling said congressional inquiries, and generally providing political cover for BATFE's latest screw-up via non-complacence with congressional requests for data. Given this, one supposes that a prime-facie case of a convicted felon in possession of a handgun is merely bothersome trivia, never mind that same constitutes a serious violation of existing federal law. Respecting the fact that we are currently living under the Democratic Administration of President Obama, might the foregoing be an example of the "change you can believe in", which Obama so often spoke of, one wonders, though looking at the historical record, Republicans haven't seemed all that concerned with reining in the antics of the run away mob that is the BATFE either. What the hell, all else having failed, there are always the rights and prerogatives of the law abiding to be attacked. In conclusion, re BATFE gun running (Operation Fast an Furious), and the part played therein by the DOJ, one of America's Great Newspapers, allegedly the Pgh. P-G has, it seems, been strangely silent. How come this? Last edited by Al Norris; June 20, 2011 at 01:57 PM. Reason: Redacted for copyright violation

June 20, 2011, 01:25 PM	#2
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,460	I'm confused. What does the BATFE running guns to Mexico have to do with Pennsylvania state courts not being in agreement as to the constitutionality of checking parolees and probationers for guns without a warrant?

June 20, 2011, 01:55 PM	#3
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	First, it is a violation of copyright law to quote an entire (or even most) of an article. Closed on that account alone. Second, the comments have nothing to do with the article copied. Closed on that account.