NYC tests concealed weapons scanner

[piercedan]

Searched and didn't find this posted.

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1245663

[mikegideon]

RF, huh? Jammer time.

[JGunner]

Lol I was just thinking today that someone would come up with a scanner to detect concealed guns pretty soon.

[piercedan]

RF, huh? Jammer time.

That was hilarious!

[RED333]

I see tin foil clothes coming to a house near you.

[TNcitizen22]

What good was probable cause anyways?

[Guest halutz]

there goes the nanny state again, oh look "London Metropolitan Police and a contractor" made the field test and produced it, go figure. I guess they want red-coats back in Ny

[vontar]

there goes the nanny state again, oh look "London Metropolitan Police and a contractor" made the field test and produced it, go figure. I guess they want red-coats back in Ny

Why do they need it, There are no guns in London.

[Guest halutz]

Why do they need it, There are no guns in London.

 

 

Don't they wish the magical law really took effect, they already issuing standard bullet-proof vest to regular police for sometime now in London.

[10-Ring]

Could this possibly be a 4th Amendment violation? 

[GhostDog]

NYPD just got slammed in court for their "stop and frisk" policy. Now this? How stupid can Bloomberg be? He must like being in court. No, this will not survive a court challenge.

BTW, the NAACP is on his butt now over the "soda control", saying it is racist.

[mikegideon]

 How stupid can Bloomberg be?

 

I'm thinking endless possibilities.

[GhostDog]

You got me on that one, Mike.

[hipower]

I'm thinking endless possibilities.

 

As he has exhibited in the past...."To infinity and beyond!"

[LagerHead]

What good was probable cause anyways?

 

 

Could this possibly be a 4th Amendment violation? 

 

Ya think? It won't (hopefully) be long before this ends up in court and is deemed so.

[10-Ring]

Ya think? It won't (hopefully) be long before this ends up in court and is deemed so.

And the nanny states will probably make some kind of exception for it stating that it is for the good of public safety or some other garbage.  I really do not understand what the great benefit of this is.  I would think that even in "gun free zones" such as government buildings and airports a traditional metal detector would be more effective as it would pick up other "weapons" that this would not.  The only use I see of this device is to violate the rights of people that are not currently causing any problems.  

[gjohnsoniv]

Oh look we're broke, lets go buy the (probably) multi, multi thousand dollar piece of equipment.

[LagerHead]

Oh look we're broke, lets go buy the (probably) multi, multi thousand dollar piece of equipment.

 

Of course the people who sell it will have no political connections either. 

[gjohnsoniv]

Of course the people who sell it will have no political connections either. 

 

 

Of course the people who sell it will have no political connections either. 

Oh of course not.

[BryanP]

Didn't SCOTUS already say that using thermal imagers to find pot grows was unconstitutional?  I don't see how this would be any different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/case.html

It's very interesting to read the opinion written by Justice Scalia.  Read what he says about using sense-enhancing devices to detect something that would otherwise not be detectable.  From Wikipedia:
 

Justice Scalia also discussed how future technology can invade on one's right of privacy and therefore authored the opinion so that it protected against more sophisticated surveillance equipment