"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 4th Amendment? Awww, screw it! We don't need no stinkin' 4th Amendment!

The above doesn't even take into consideration the 2nd Amendment, of course.

Folks,

As a Bostonian, I wouldn't get too worked up about Mumbles somehow figuring out a way to deprive people of their 2nd amendment rights. He can barely find his way into the office every day.

This is fairly typical hoo-haw from Mayor Dopey.

Listen carefully to this quote (keeping in mind that he thinks there is an emergency afoot):

“I will be looking to meet with public safety officials in the next several weeks to try and put a plan in place to bring a summit together to meet with public safety officials over the summer, whatever it takes.”

Let's deconstruct this. Mumbles doesn't want to ACT TODAY. Instead, he is only

... looking to meet

Not actually meeting, but he's "looking to meet" with public safety officials ...

not today, but

... "in the next several weeks" to bring a summit together ...

not today, but

"next summer."

So, Mumbles will, within the next several weeks, meet with some people to begin talking about maybe meeting next summer ... you know, to stem the tide of death that has washed up into Boston during his 3 terms as Mayor.

By the time he actually gets around to searching cars, we'll all be beaming back and forth to far off planets and nobody will have guns, but phasers.

How in the hell did this guy get re-elected by a landslide? Are the people of Boston that stupid?

Think it can't happen. Tell that to all the people picked up and prosecuted in random DUI roadblocks. Everyone that says "Well of course the people drinking and driving deserve it.", but think you shouldn't be searched for a weapon has just taken a look at the slippery slop in action. Both of those examples show you prior restraint in action. You demonize one behavior and allow those peoples rights to be impacted, you risk having your own favorite cause gored.

Let me get this straight. The ACLU gets it's panties in a twist every time someone tries to profile for terrorists or try to inspect bags going on a subway but the Mayor thinks he can stop any car he wants crossing a state line to search for guns? I suppose if he lets the people who are going to use them for terrorist activites go while arresting the legal gun owners the ACLU will be down with the plan.

I am sooooo happy I live in Brookline.

Hey, at the California border they can search your car for fruits and vegetables.

Uh, Mantis, that makes sense because of quarantines. Entirely different thing.

They're still searching my car without probable cause. The question is really what constitutes "unreasonable searches and seizures". According to California searching to prevent plant pests is reasonable. Apparently Jay and others here think searching for guns is unreasonable. I think they both are, but I don't live in those states so I don't get a say in the matter.

They're still searching my car without probable cause.

I have crossed that border more times in my life than I can remember.

I've been asked, "Do you have any fruits or vegetables?" Always said "No."

Never been searched.

Maybe it's how I looked at the time, or maybe it is simply random searches, but I had my car searched at the Nevada/California border about 5 years ago, despite saying that I had no fruits or vegetables. They were friendly and polite and all, and of course they found nothing they objected to, but still...