If anyone values any amount privacy freedom and the right to be secure in your possesions, NOW is the time to take action! Check out the new law at:http://forums.ar15.com/Forum3/HTML/013240.html. I hope this address prints if not I will try to post it in code immediately.

-- Doreen Davenport (livinginskin@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000

Answers

If you would like more info on this please go to : http://www.spectator.org On the left go to Archives and then go to the may issue. Once in the May issue scroll down to the link that says: The Public Policy . If you will read this you will be shocked at what is going on I guarantee it. I am currently trying to get permission to publish this article on my e-mail list AboutFreedom. This is really scary.

Little Bit Farm

-- Little bit Farm (littlebit@calinet.com), June 01, 2000.

Doreen and Lil Bit: I just posted the url on BWH bb and have decided to vote libertarian this year. I'm so sick of being lied to, deceived etc I could puke. Republicans=small government---NOT!

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), June 01, 2000.

ever consider a dog :) .. ahem to protect your livestock? ;)

http://lgd.org

many nice older dogs that need homes also

-- too concerned to give (drenotsay@home.com), June 01, 2000.

I was unable to find the site. What is this about?

-- Cheryl Cox (bramblecottage@hotmail.com), June 01, 2000.

Okay, I just got a bit more computer savvy. Hope this works.....The story follows. Sneak Attack on the Fourth Amendment Revealed

NewsMax.com Wednesday, May 31, 2000

With the help of top GOP members of Congress, a Justice Department bill already passed by the Senate and being pushed in the House would nullify parts of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Wrote Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute: "The Reno Department of Justice is very good at being sneaky. The DOJ's lobbyists are on the verge of successfully sneaking into law a provision which will authorize federal agents to stealthily enter people's homes, search the homes, and not tell anyone."

The bill, The Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act  allegedly a measure designed to help government and police limit the manufacture and sale of methamphetamines  would, for all intents and purposes, make an end run around the ban on unreasonable search and seizure provided by the Constitution.

It glided through the Senate under the guidance of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. The Senates version of the bill (S. 486) was sponsored by Senator John Ashcroft, R-Mo. The House Bill (H.R. 2987) was sponsored by U.S. Representative Chris Cannon, R- Utah.

Opponents say the bill essentially eradicates the Fourth Amendment, which states: "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 bill empowers the federal government, state governments and local law enforcement agencies to enter private property  homes, businesses, automobiles, etc.  for any "criminal searches" without a warrant and without any legal obligation to inform the private property owner that a search and seizure was conducted until months later, if at all.

According to the Asheville Tribune, the bill also takes a vicious swipe at the First Amendment by allowing government agents "to confiscate intangible evidence  hard-drive data, photographs or copies made of any documents or family or personal belongings, diaries, etc.  without ever having to inform the owner that their property was searched. If physical evidence was taken, then the government could wait up to 90 days later, before having to notify the owner that a secret search of their property ever occurred."

In an article published May 18 in National Review Online, Kopel said the bill was aimed especially at computer hard drives, which could be copied in an owners absence and examined without the owners knowledge.

Incredibly, the bill has echoes of the Waco tragedy, another Reno disaster. Agents of the thuggish BATF obtained a search warrant allowing them to launch their raid on the Branch Davidian compound by falsely claiming that cult leader David Koresh was manufacturing methamphetamines at the compound. Under the new bill, they would not have had to bother getting a warrant, but could simply have gone ahead and staged their attack without worrying about the bothersome Fourth Amendment.

According to the Tribune, a source within the Senate Judiciary committee admitted that the language in the search and seizure provision "slipped by everybody" in the Senate. "[Hatch and the Justice Department] buried it deep in the bill, and nobody noticed until the thing had already passed."

Opponents say the real purpose of the bill is not to restrict the manufacture and sale of methamphetamines but instead to get rid of a constitutional provision the Clinton administration sees as an inconvenience.

Said Kopel: "The Secret Searches measure is so outrageous that it would have no chance of being enacted as a bill on its own, when subjected to public scrutiny and debate. So instead, the DOJ has nestled the Secret Search item deep inside a long bill dealing with methamphetamines."

A spokeswoman for Hatch insisted that meth is the real target of the bill.

Jeanne Lapatto, spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee and its chairman, Sen. Hatch, said she was unaware of the specific provisions in question but defended the goals of the bill. "This is a bipartisan bill," Lapatto said. "During hearings, no one had any problems with the overall goal of the bill, which is curbing the horrible problem of methamphetamines."

Not so, says Kopel. "If the Secret Searches provision became law, it would apply to all searches conducted by the federal government, not just searches involving methamphetimines or bankruptcy.

Now aware of the sneak attack provisions in the bill, some GOP members are vowing to fight the measure.

The Tribune report reveals that U.S. Representative Bob Barr, R-Ga., a member of the House Judiciary Committee, is leading the fight against this bill in the House. Barr says that the search and seizure provisions of the bill "have nothing to do with methamphetamines," and he believes that had the search and seizure provision been introduced as a separate bill, its chances for passage "would be very, very problematic."

"These are not minor changes," Barr added. "These are substantive and far-reaching changes to the criminal law on search and seizure. Its unconscionable that someone would try to sneak these provisions into an unrelated bill."

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.

Don't like the sound of this one bit. Not that I am doing anything illegal, but sure don't want to have anyone snooping around without just cause and a warrant. What, other than contacting our reps, can we do about it? Jan

-- Jan (Janice12@aol.com), June 01, 2000.

As far as what we can do about it....Definitely contact your representatives, forward this to everyone you know, raise a stink to high heaven about it until the masses get to see it on Dateline and they say "Hey, that ain't right." Aside from that I suppose some kind of a march would be in order. Also, the Feed Your Gun idea is a good one, but I think they might use it in a very negative way. "These people are stock piling for an insurrection of some kind and we have to investigate..." No warrants, probable cause, or notification necessary. It's a frightening scenario. I sure wouldn't use a credit card to buy ammo!

This has made me fighting mad. If we think that these little weasels would be above planting evidence we are even more mistaken.

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), June 01, 2000.

The original warrant for Waco was obtained for methamphetamines and child endangerment. They listed weapons on site as a reason for a raid. The ATF, got what they deserved. Every american should answer an unidentified raid with rapid fire. Give them what they came for, these are not law enforcement officers, they are storm troopers. I don't know if the Branch Dividians were right or wrong but I do know they gave all they had and justice wasn't blind in this case. The demon tried to enter the front door and was repelled.

-- Joel Rosen (Joel681@webtv.net), June 02, 2000.

Doreen, it seems like everything reminds me of an old Country/Western song. Someone, when I posted something about a song, said I was dating myslef but I'll do it again. There's an old CW song named "When I go, I'll go down swinging." I believe that's what we aught to do, just go down swinging. If we fight hard enough, maybe we won't even go down but, either way, I like to keep that attitude. The mention of using our reps, I believe, was a really good suggestion but the one about keeping some mean dogs to "protect our livestock" was good too. Your almost neighbor. Eagle

-- eagle (eagle@alpha1.net), June 04, 2000.

Eagle,

I am really happy that we are almost neighbors!

-- Doreen (livinginskin@yahoo.com), June 05, 2000.

Hi folks,

Well, I just looked at the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act of 1999. The text is available at http://www.theorator.com/bills106/s1428.html. The 4th Amendment troublesome spot seems to be Sec. 10. Notice; Clarification, which amends laws I haven't been able to find copies of, namely: Section 3103a of title 18, United States Code, with Sections 3117 and 2705; and Section 2(e) of Public Law 95-78 (91 Stat.320). Does anyone know a web site for these laws?

As to the First Amendment, it looks as though they are only prohibiting distribution of information with knowledge or intent that the information will be used in "an activity that constitutes a Federal crime." I guess that would be a problem for criminals, and I haven't decided for myself yet whether that would be a bad thing, necessarily.

Anyway, those sites or any other commentary would be welcome. Thanks in advance for your input.

-- Laura Jensen (lauraj@seedlaw.com), June 07, 2000.