• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Arizona, the most Constitutional state left in the union

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
woolfe9999 said:
Didn't Arizona just pass a law that requires everyone to carry their immigration papers at all times, and subjects people to random and arbitrary stops by law enforcement to check said papers?

Doesn't sound very "Constitutional" to me.

- wolf
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution does it prohibit that?
 
woolfe9999 said:
Didn't Arizona just pass a law that requires everyone to carry their immigration papers at all times, and subjects people to random and arbitrary stops by law enforcement to check said papers?

Doesn't sound very "Constitutional" to me.

- wolf
Click to expand...

So go make a thread about it. :awe:
 
Carmen813 said:
Add two to the amendment this thread is about and you'll find it.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Explain.
 
Tristicus said:
Where in the Constitution does it prohibit that?
Click to expand...

Unreasonable search and siezure.

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.

Randomly stopped, you are not secure in your persons and there is no probable cause, and you are assume to be guilty until proven innocent. That doesn't fly.

Can anyone say "papers plz" in German for me?

But hey, one thing at a time.

I'm particularly big on 2nd over the others, bec
 
Last edited:
halik said:
Just trade it for the compact one, i think they're worth about the same.
Click to expand...

Even the USP Compacts are rather large. A K40 or P11 or something of that size would be prefereble for total concealment.

On the other hand, I no longer have to be conscious of wearing a coat while I'm carrying. I've never had any real need or desire to conceal, and thus never got a permit, but it's inconvenient at times being conscious of whether or not I may be inadvertently concealing.
 
Last edited:
Patranus said:
Where does the law state that they can question someones legal status without probable cause?
Click to expand...

I have not seen this law, so I honestly don't know exactly what it says. I'm just responding specifically to what people are saying about it, wrong or otherwise, and demonstrating that my definition of Constitutional is not limited to guns.

What probable cause is required to question someone's legal status? "looks Mexican" doesn't cut it.
 
Last edited:
exdeath said:
I have not seen this law, so I honestly don't know exactly what it says. I'm just responding specifically to what people are saying about it, wrong or otherwise, and demonstrating that my definition of Constitutional is not limited to guns.

What probable cause is required to question someone's legal status? "looks Mexican" doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the law either but from what I have read about it, i get the impression that the requirement is on top of another crime.

So, you can't be pulled over and simply asked your legal status but if you are pulled over for talking on your cellphone you have to prove legal status.

But since I haven't read the law let me be the first to say that I could be wrong.
 
Patranus said:
I haven't read the law either but from what I have read about it, i get the impression that the requirement is on top of another crime.

So, you can't be pulled over and simply asked your legal status but if you are pulled over for talking on your cellphone you have to prove legal status.

But since I haven't read the law let me be the first to say that I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem any different from the requirement to identify yourself when being confronted by an officer for a valid reason. It's similar to checking for warrants on routine traffic stops after you've done something particular to stand out and warrant probable cause. I'd have to read the statute word for word.
 
Last edited:
exdeath said:
Unreasonable search and siezure.

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.

Randomly stopped, you are not secure in your persons and there is no probable cause, and you are assume to be guilty until proven innocent. That doesn't fly.

Can anyone say "papers plz" in German for me?

But hey, one thing at a time.

I'm particularly big on 2nd over the others, bec
Click to expand...

What's the definition of unreasonable? Also, the Constitution states unreasonable search and seizure rather than unreasonable search or seizure. If DWI checkpoints are constitutional, Arizona's new law sounds perfectly fine too.
 
txrandom said:
What's the definition of unreasonable? Also, the Constitution states unreasonable search and seizure rather than unreasonable search or seizure. If DWI checkpoints are constitutional, Arizona's new law sounds perfectly fine too.
Click to expand...

Driving is a privilege.
 
txrandom said:
What's the definition of unreasonable? Also, the Constitution states unreasonable search and seizure rather than unreasonable search or seizure. If DWI checkpoints are constitutional, Arizona's new law sounds perfectly fine too.
Click to expand...

DWI checkpoints are announced ahead of time and you can choose to avoid the area. It's also public property, and everyone is equally checked without discrimination.
 
txrandom said:
So what is unreasonable? And is this both unreasonable search and unreasonable seizure?
Click to expand...

What is considered reasonable or unreasonable varies drastically from person to person. That is why we have a judicial system to handle accusations on a case by case basis.
 
Tristicus said:
So is living in the US!
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges.

txrandom said:
So what is unreasonable? And is this both unreasonable search and unreasonable seizure?
Click to expand...

Exdeath covers it fairly well. Also, you can choose not to drive, and find another method of transportation, thereby avoiding DWI checkpoints. You can't practically choose to avoid going out in public where you can be stopped by police for your papers.

exdeath said:
DWI checkpoints are announced ahead of time and you can choose to avoid the area. It's also public property, and everyone is equally checked without discrimination.
Click to expand...

Largely, this.
 
MotF Bane said:
Apples and oranges.



Exdeath covers it fairly well. Also, you can choose not to drive, and find another method of transportation, thereby avoiding DWI checkpoints. You can't practically choose to avoid going out in public where you can be stopped by police for your papers.



Largely, this.
Click to expand...

You still fail to say how this is both unreasonable search and unreasonable seizure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top