The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 17, 2020, 03:17 AM   #51
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,274
Nope - I learned that from life.

One day, God willing, you'll pick up on it too.

Until then, go ahead and have a chuckle - I know I did when I was younger.
I used to giggle a little bit about old timers having to make some hard financial choices & think I would never, ever, ever let myself get into that position.

Then along came Obama Care & the restraints taken off prescription medications.
The same prescription medication I pay $399 a month for is available worldwide for $11.

The same medication my wife has to pay $1700 a dose for, is available worldwide - for under $10.

Would I line up to get a .gov implant, that would allow me to get those medications for what the rest of the world pays?
Where's the line?
Hal is offline  
Old January 17, 2020, 04:09 PM   #52
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 5,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
Chemical castration has never been ruled unconstitutional (given an applicable and appropriately severe offense and conviction) and is certainly a forced medical procedure applied to certain felons who have already served their time.

To be clear, I'm not arguing for microchipping felons, just responding with my opinion on the question of whether it would be constitutional or not. As far as I know, it would be given an appropriately severe offense and conviction.

If you have some sort of information about a ruling to the contrary, I would be interested to know about it, just out of curiosity--not because I'm planning to start a campaign to have prohibited persons microchipped.
Chemical castration is only legal if the offender agrees to do it. They can be chemically castrated as part of a deal for early parole or as part of a deal to avoid jail time.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 17, 2020, 05:24 PM   #53
Kevin Rohrer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2010
Location: Medina, Ohio
Posts: 847
Microchipping people on Probation, out on Bond, etc is no different from those w/ Home Arrest bracelets on. And they don't always work, as the wearing finds ways of getting past them.
__________________
Member: Orange Gunsite Family, NRA--Life, ARTCA, and American Legion.

Caveat Emptor: Cavery Grips from Clayton, NC. He is a scammer
Kevin Rohrer is offline  
Old January 17, 2020, 06:12 PM   #54
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 13,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Rohrer
Microchipping people on Probation, out on Bond, etc is no different from those w/ Home Arrest bracelets on.
Of course they are different. An ankle monitor clamps on externally; a microchip is placed by a surgical implant. You can argue that it's "minor" but, as far as I know, at least under the laws of my state if the skin is broken it's legally a surgical procedure. Removing an ankle monitor involves unlocking it. Removing a microchip requires a second surgical procedure.

They are VERY different, IMHO.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 18, 2020, 12:54 AM   #55
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,808
Quote:
Chemical castration is only legal if the offender agrees to do it.
Maybe in some places. In others (TX, CA, FL, AL), it's involuntary. There can be a voluntary component in the sense that in some areas the offender can opt for surgical castration as an alternative.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...astration.html

It does appear to be controversial, but there haven't been any rulings that it is unconstitutional at this point.

Again, I'm not arguing in favor of microchipping (nor in favor of chemical or surgical castration), just pointing out that there are involuntary medical procedures haven't been ruled unconstitutional, even for offenders who have been released from custody.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 18, 2020, 07:42 PM   #56
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 5,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
Maybe in some places. In others (TX, CA, FL, AL), it's involuntary. There can be a voluntary component in the sense that in some areas the offender can opt for surgical castration as an alternative.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...astration.html

It does appear to be controversial, but there haven't been any rulings that it is unconstitutional at this point.

Again, I'm not arguing in favor of microchipping (nor in favor of chemical or surgical castration), just pointing out that there are involuntary medical procedures haven't been ruled unconstitutional, even for offenders who have been released from custody.
The way I read the article the "mandatory" was not mandatory. It was "mandatory" for release from prison. That is totally legal because its voluntary.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 18, 2020, 09:04 PM   #57
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,808
The way I read the article it's mandatory because, well, because it says it's mandatory.
"Both the California and Florida statutes provide for mandatory injections for repeat sex offenders..."
The law forces adult sex offenders whose victims were 12 or younger to begin the treatment at least a month before getting released on parole and continue until a court determines that they can stop.


As far as I can tell, it is constitutional to enforce severe rights restrictions and penalties on convicted felons, even after their release. That appears to include medical procedures far more invasive than microchipping.

If anyone has any information about rulings suggesting that medical procedures enforced against convicted felons are unconstitutional, let's look at that rather than dig farther and farther into the weeds of chemical castration laws or argue about the definition of "mandatory".
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 18, 2020, 09:21 PM   #58
berettaprofessor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2008
Posts: 963
Quote:
What most people forget is that the first country the Nazi's conquered was their own.
Thank you, 44AMP. Making that my signature line.
berettaprofessor is offline  
Old January 18, 2020, 11:45 PM   #59
langenc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,342
From post #16
""Your facial scan is already in data bases somewhere. With the proliferation of security cameras we are all in a system somewhere. It would just be a matter of centralizing the data.""

If you dont have a "REAL ID" drivers license you soon will have. I believe all w/ one have their photo (facial reconizable)on file w/ that DL.. Real IDs required by Oct 2020 to fly, get in govt bldg and others...
langenc is offline  
Old January 19, 2020, 10:01 PM   #60
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 5,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
The way I read the article it's mandatory because, well, because it says it's mandatory.
"Both the California and Florida statutes provide for mandatory injections for repeat sex offenders..."
The law forces adult sex offenders whose victims were 12 or younger to begin the treatment at least a month before getting released on parole and continue until a court determines that they can stop.


As far as I can tell, it is constitutional to enforce severe rights restrictions and penalties on convicted felons, even after their release. That appears to include medical procedures far more invasive than microchipping.

If anyone has any information about rulings suggesting that medical procedures enforced against convicted felons are unconstitutional, let's look at that rather than dig farther and farther into the weeds of chemical castration laws or argue about the definition of "mandatory".
Mandatory before being released on parole. They have the option to stay in prison and not parole.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 20, 2020, 01:28 AM   #61
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,808
Did you read the last quote? The law forces them to start and they must continue until a court determines they can stop. Nothing states that it automatically stops when parole is up.

Furthermore this is far from the only instance of a released convicted criminal (or suspects) being denied constitutional rights. Virtually every felon is denied the right to vote for life. Virtually every felon (and some misdemeanor offenders) are denied their second amendment rights for life. Suspects can be forced to give blood samples (via warrant) even without a conviction. Some offenders are forced to register for life on public lists that include their name, the general category of their offense and address giving up privacy rights in the process.

If you have some sort of evidence or ruling that demonstrates that micro-chipping would obviously fall into some special category of constitutional right that felons must retain according to the constitution, please provide it.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 20, 2020, 03:36 AM   #62
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 6,585
I've reconsidered my posts.

JohnKSa has pointed out something that I missed somehow. The topic gives me tunnel vision.

For citizens who keep their freedom by remaining civil.I stand by rejecting implants.

If you violate the freedoms of others by being a violent felon,there is a price to pay,and you no longer are entitled to the full rights and protections from the Government.

The Citizens are entitled to be protected from the violent felon.

An implant or injections might be creative alternatives to life in prison or capital punishment.
HiBC is offline  
Old January 20, 2020, 06:28 AM   #63
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,274
Quote:
Virtually every felon is denied the right to vote for life
No longer true.
Only 9 states have lifetime denial.

https://felonvoting.procon.org/view....ourceID=000286

(& - yes, I was surprised by this also as I had been under the impression it was a lifetime loss in the entire country)
Hal is offline  
Old January 20, 2020, 10:26 AM   #64
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,317
Hal, you beat me to it. In Maine and several other states, Felons can vote. Doesn't seem quite right, but it's how it is. Much akin to Gerrymandering in my opinion.
shurshot is offline  
Old January 20, 2020, 12:33 PM   #65
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 3,868
The ACL would go bananas with micro chipping.

Last edited by JWT; January 20, 2020 at 12:44 PM.
JWT is offline  
Old January 20, 2020, 04:02 PM   #66
Pahoo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: IOWA
Posts: 7,799
Place the palm, on the screen !!!

You really don't need to micro-ship folks for whatever reason. Just use a palm-reader as it's less intrusive. "As required", you simply place the palm of you hand and they can get whatever information is required. All depends on what data is loaded in the program. I feel that name, address and picture, is all that is needed. However, it might also show that your great-great Grandfather was Poncho Villa. ……

Be Safe !!!
__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.
Pahoo is offline  
Old January 20, 2020, 06:20 PM   #67
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 5,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
Did you read the last quote? The law forces them to start and they must continue until a court determines they can stop. Nothing states that it automatically stops when parole is up.

Furthermore this is far from the only instance of a released convicted criminal (or suspects) being denied constitutional rights. Virtually every felon is denied the right to vote for life. Virtually every felon (and some misdemeanor offenders) are denied their second amendment rights for life. Suspects can be forced to give blood samples (via warrant) even without a conviction. Some offenders are forced to register for life on public lists that include their name, the general category of their offense and address giving up privacy rights in the process.

If you have some sort of evidence or ruling that demonstrates that micro-chipping would obviously fall into some special category of constitutional right that felons must retain according to the constitution, please provide it.
You are reading what you want to hear. Mandatory for parole release is not "mandatory". It is a choice. "Until the courts" is also dependent on the person still being on parole. When sentence is completed, its no longer under the jurisdiction of the court.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 21, 2020, 01:03 AM   #68
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,808
Quote:
No longer true.
Only 9 states have lifetime denial.
Fair enough. However the point remains that it is constitutional to deny convicted/released felons the right to vote for life even if it’s no longer done everywhere.
Quote:
You really don't need to micro-ship folks for whatever reason.
I agree. I’m not in favor of it for a number of reasons having nothing to do with constitutionality.
Quote:
You are reading what you want to hear.
The source says they must continue until the court allows them to stop. It doesn’t say that they must continue until the court allows them to stop OR until their parole is up. But I think we’re wandering away from the topic and deeper into the weeds of the regulation surrounding chemical castration which is not really productive because the real question is about microchipping, not chemical castration.

Although I am not in favor of it, I think microchipping would likely be constitutional given that its clear that felons can be denied essential constitutional rights for life.

Here’s a source which suggests that lifetime microchipping would likely be constitutional for sex offenders.

http://ncjolt.org/tracking-predators...orth-carolina/
Use of a microchip implant to restrict a convicted sex offender from access to certain public places would alleviate both factors significant to the court’s analysis: the implant has little to no discernable effect on a person and a sex offender’s movements would not be tracked continually. This avoids the unconstitutional aspects of SBM and achieves a policy goal of protecting the public from recidivism in convicted sex offenders.
Here's a more thorough analysis of the topic.

http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads...tgersFinal.pdf
Applying the two-part analysis from Grady demonstrates that a microchip implant would not raise the same constitutional issues that a GPS ankle monitor does, and would not affect an unreasonable search...
To the extent that it might not pass constitutional muster (and, to be fair, there are some sources out there that suggest it might not), the concerns appear to center around the Fourth Amendment (protection against searches), not around issues having to do with the invasive nature of the medical procedure.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 21, 2020, 01:26 AM   #69
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,859
not deliberately trying to drift the thread, but lets say we change "sex offender" to "prohibited person"

I have a couple questions about this..
Quote:
Use of a microchip implant to restrict a convicted PROHIBITED PERSON from access to certain public places would alleviate both factors significant to the court’s analysis: the implant has little to no discernable effect on a person and a PROHIBITED PERSON’s movements would not be tracked continually. This avoids the unconstitutional aspects of SBM and achieves a policy goal of protecting the public from recidivism in convicted PROHIBITED PERSON.
Specifically I don't understand how a chip could restrict access to certain areas, particularly if the offender's movements would not be tracked continually, and HOW does any chip protect the public from recidivism (renewed breaking of the law)???

The best I can see is how a chip could send an alarm AFTER THE FACT. We' are talking about some sci-fi mini bomb that would blow their head off if they crossed "the barrier" only something that could, at most sound an alarm or alert AFTER the law has been broken. This PROTECTS NO ONE.

Or at least only protects others AFTER someone has again, become a victim.

Legal issues aside (for the moment) what is the chip supposed to do? What could it do that is not already capable of being done with existing ID or the coming "smart ID"??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 21, 2020, 02:15 AM   #70
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,808
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.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old January 21, 2020, 12:32 PM   #71
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 5,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
Fair enough. However the point remains that it is constitutional to deny convicted/released felons the right to vote for life even if it’s no longer done everywhere.I agree. I’m not in favor of it for a number of reasons having nothing to do with constitutionality.The source says they must continue until the court allows them to stop. It doesn’t say that they must continue until the court allows them to stop OR until their parole is up. But I think we’re wandering away from the topic and deeper into the weeds of the regulation surrounding chemical castration which is not really productive because the real question is about microchipping, not chemical castration.

Although I am not in favor of it, I think microchipping would likely be constitutional given that its clear that felons can be denied essential constitutional rights for life.

Here’s a source which suggests that lifetime microchipping would likely be constitutional for sex offenders.

http://ncjolt.org/tracking-predators...orth-carolina/
Use of a microchip implant to restrict a convicted sex offender from access to certain public places would alleviate both factors significant to the court’s analysis: the implant has little to no discernable effect on a person and a sex offender’s movements would not be tracked continually. This avoids the unconstitutional aspects of SBM and achieves a policy goal of protecting the public from recidivism in convicted sex offenders.
Here's a more thorough analysis of the topic.

http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads...tgersFinal.pdf
Applying the two-part analysis from Grady demonstrates that a microchip implant would not raise the same constitutional issues that a GPS ankle monitor does, and would not affect an unreasonable search...
To the extent that it might not pass constitutional muster (and, to be fair, there are some sources out there that suggest it might not), the concerns appear to center around the Fourth Amendment (protection against searches), not around issues having to do with the invasive nature of the medical procedure.
We are not in the weeds. The article over simplified and offered incomplete information. Imagine the media doing such a thing!
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 21, 2020, 12:33 PM   #72
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 5,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa View Post
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.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 21, 2020, 02:35 PM   #73
shurshot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2006
Posts: 1,317
Deleted.

Last edited by shurshot; January 22, 2020 at 05:58 AM.
shurshot is offline  
Old January 21, 2020, 05:13 PM   #74
reynolds357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 5,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by shurshot View Post
"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."

What if the prohibited person wants to shop at Dick's Sporting Goods, or a Walmart (that sells shotguns), Academy Sports or LL Beans? Are the Police still called when the alarm goes off, only if they went in for Dock shoes or a fishing pole and meandered too close to an alarm scanning device? Or do store Detectives follow them around and take photos? How do you prove INTENT, unless they are actually trying to PURCHASE a firearm? Isn't that what Background checks are already for?
The sheer volume of false alarm trips would quickly overwhelm Police and Security, given how many prohibited persons are in the USA and engage in shopping.
Perhaps in the era of Amazon I'm overthinking it.
Agree. We need no further govt meddling. I retired from Law enforcement. Spent most my years working drugs and vice. News Flash!!! Criminals dont buy their weapons from legal dealers!!! They buy them on the streets or steal them or trade dope for them.
reynolds357 is online now  
Old January 22, 2020, 12:27 AM   #75
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,808
Quote:
We have too many laws now. We dont need more.
I agree.
Just as a refresher...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
To be clear, I'm not arguing for microchipping felons...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Again, I'm not arguing in favor of microchipping...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
I’m not in favor of it for a number of reasons having nothing to do with constitutionality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
I don't think that implementation is feasible for a number of reasons...
Quote:
What if the prohibited person wants to shop at Dick's Sporting Goods, or a Walmart (that sells shotguns), Academy Sports or LL Beans? Are the Police still called when the alarm goes off, only if they went in for Dock shoes or a fishing pole and meandered too close to an alarm scanning device? Or do store Detectives follow them around and take photos? How do you prove INTENT, unless they are actually trying to PURCHASE a firearm? Isn't that what Background checks are already for?
The sheer volume of false alarm trips would quickly overwhelm Police and Security, given how many prohibited persons are in the USA and engage in shopping.
I was answering a question about a source I provided, not arguing for it or trying to come up with a way to make it feasible. In fact, if you had quoted one more sentence out of the post to which you responded, it would actually contain my statement saying that: "I don't think that implementation is feasible for a number of reasons..."
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10350 seconds with 10 queries