It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by re22666
where i live (WNY) i keep hearing of firemen going door to door to check for smoke alarms and repeatedly hear that they seem to look around more than go right where directed the smoke alarms are, "have to check dryer vents, furnice, fusebox?, etc. as well."
Any family with 2 incomes typically does not need to work 2 or 3 jobs, and that's a sad reason to give for "bad parenting." The kids that this is aimed at are typically from more well-to-do homes anyways.
None of my friends I know work 2 or 3 jobs. Only if they are going to school or something, and if you are going to college, perhaps that's no the best time to have kids?
I never see the probably 100-fold more "good cop" moments posted though, how curious.
So again, I don't see a wicked agenda associated with this law.
I'd think if they wanted to actually get into folks homes, they'd do something more clever than only targeting kids (or folks that "look under 30").
It has the potential to be abused, but we wouldn't need it all, if all parents actually parented, instead of blithely ignoring what their kids are doing behind closed doors.
Originally posted by semperfortis
It's not a 4th Amendment issue, I'll explain why.
California is VERY liberal compared to many states here in the East. In all three states I have worked in, this law is not needed for one very good reason.
If I get a call about a loud party, I have a citizen complaint and therefor "Reasonable Suspicion"...
When I get there, if I see or hear a party going on with juveniles and alcohol present, I now have "Probable Cause". I'm going in the house, period. Arrests will be made.
Remember that the 4th Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution for that matter, does NOT provide protection for people to break the law. That is NOT it's intent and to subjugate it to that role is a disservice to all Americans.
Also understand that asking for an ID is not a 4th Amendment issue. The Supreme Court has CONSTANTLY upheld the right of the police, (Yeah go figure, police have rights too) to request and even demand an identification from any person being stopped under Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause.
Google "Terry Frisk" or "Terry Stop"
Originally posted by dunwichwitch
What if I refuse to identify myself?
What if you have no right to know who I am just because you have reasonable suspicion?
Not saying that you are, Semper, but A LOT of police officers will arrest you if you don't present an I.D.
[edit on 25-7-2008 by dunwichwitch]
In the New User Guide it states on Page 22:
The premises identification number (PIN) is assigned permanently to a geophysical location. If an owner or entity sells his/her farm, the next operators of the premises use the original premises identification number that had been assigned to that location. If the seller buys a new location to build a new operation that never had livestock, he/she would register that location and obtain a new premises identification number (PIN).
Premises Identification = Encumbrance xstatic99645.tripod.com...
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The proposed surveillance of every premises where even a single animal of any covered livestock is kept and the requirement of RFID of every animal raises significant Fourth Amendment concerns. Indeed, the “premises” that USDA plans to subject to GPS satellite surveillance and RFID includes the private homes of citizens....Comments on NAIS from Roger McEowen, Leonard Dolezal Professor in Agricultural Law