Fourth Amendment?

Question

Could gun control coexist with the Fourth Amendment? Because it's basically saying that we can be secure in our homes, isn't it?

Answer 1

It certainly could not coexist with the second amendment the right to bear arms. The fourth amendment has already been breached. We are not safe in our homes, the federal government can search our homes without due process and without a warrant. They only need probable cause. Thanks to the Patriot Act.

added details: I am not talking about the right to shoot federal officials , or law enforcement or anyone else for that matter. since when do criminals care about gun control? The Patriot Act gives Federal agents the right to search your home, while you are not home, implant listening devices in your home, without due process. I am not against searches but I am against illegal searches. This is why the constitution was set up in three parts, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial so our rights as citizens will be protected. Checks and balances. I am against anything that takes away our constitutional rights.

Answer 2

Guns are merely a tool allowed to those who wish to have them for the purpose of defending that from which all other rights are derived; life.

Amendment IV has been violated without the Patriot Act in the failed War on Drugs. To search for terrorists, all the government had to do was claim they were looking for drugs and the majority of citizens would have said "no problem".

This double standard is atrocious and an abomination to the Constitution.

All the Patriot Act did was to finally codify the very tactics the government has been using for years prior to 9/11.

Searching for terrorists is reasonable while arresting casual drug users is not.

I also believe that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in times of national emergency.

Article I Section 9, second paragraph reads:
"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

There is an exception clearly noted in Amendment V as to whom is likely to have the privilege suspended.

The exception reads:
"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger"

Answer 3

"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."

It is clearly referring to being secure from government abuse. Whether of not you have a right to own a gun, you do not have a right to shoot government law enforcement agents. You have a right to sue them. If they had intended that gun ownership was to keep you secure in your home they would have said so, but instead they said this

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Answer 4

Yep, gun control is a legitmate function of govn't.

And hiding nukes in your basement sounds like a reasonable search.

But when we use the term "gun control" that means different things to different folks. I'm talking about machine guns and rocket launchers, - not the usual side-arms / rifles kept.

Answer 5

From UNREASONABLE searches. The 4th amendment doesn't say that you can shoot everyone who rings the doorbell. And just ask GW what he thinks of warrants. BTW, gun control doesn't mean you can't have a gun.

Answer 6

All Americans should have the right to defend their homes from intruders without a warrant.

Answer 7

The fouth could not exist without the second.