Massachusetts politician behind unlawful searches

[greenwrench]

A local politician in Swampscott, Massachusetts, recently said residents' 4th Amendment protections should be explicitly violated if they insist upon exercising 2nd Amendment rights in the town.

Swampscott Selectman Barry Greenfield claimed that because local police "need the ability to enforce the state law" which "requires Massachusetts gun owners to keep their firearms locked away or rendered inoperable," officers should not be hindered in their ability to walk into local gun owners' homes unannounced and verify compliance.

If that sounds like a proposal for complete violation of the Bill of Rights, it's because it was such a proposal.

Commenters on the story about Greenfield's proposal published in the Swampscott Patch quickly called the Constitutionally-clueless politician out.

"Go ahead show up at my door and ask. you will get a loaded 357mag in your face. I am a law abiding citizen and gun owner. This moron obviously has never heard of the 4 th amendment. You know the one about unwarranted search and seizure," one commenter wrote.

Another posted, "Frog march this guy down the steps of Town Hall, he's unAmerican and has no place even being near an American government of any size. And, as I understand the impact of one of the recent SCOTUS decisions, (DC or Illinois?) when the licensed gun owner is at home, the guns do NOT have to be locked up and 'rendered inoperable'. There is little point of having a gun in your house for self defense if it has to be locked up."

And another commented: "Have any of you back there ever read or even know what the US Constitution is? Your inspection program would be an infringement on the 2nd Amendment causing a violation of the 4th Amendment. You folks need to remove you head from your lower intestine and get some fresh air."

The public backlash, both online and, presumably, throughout the town, lead Greenfield to rethink his proposal.

He said in a statement: "I'd like to take a minute to apologize to any individual who believes my intentions were to create any type of procedure that would violate any amendment in the Bill of Rights. I have no interest in having our town seek out the ability to violate the fourth amendment and perform warrantless search and seizure of personal property. If anything I have said or written gave that impression, I apologize.

"My intention was simply to learn more about whether or not an existing law could be enforced within the strict boundaries of the Constitution.

"In regards to those who seek my resignation, I will say this: I have spent every day of my seven years in Swampscott – whether as a parent, teaching volunteer, coach, committee member or selectmen – trying to make this town a better place to live. I will continue all of those efforts for the foreseeable future."

[Zephyr]

This moron would have been right at home in stalinist Russia.

[Bozz10mm]

What has been said cannot be unsaid.  I hope they recall vote him out. 

[mag360]

That turns my stomach hearing this ideology basically getting worse.  The current california attorney general said the same thing as DA of san francisco a few years ago.  "You can have a gun, but we will come by to make sure you lock it up"

[pacapcop]

No surprised,it's pansy Mass politicos at work. The people just seem to conform to these laws instead of fighting back. Same with Jersey. Problem is the shit holes within state cause the problems and the rest suffer. The occupants of said shit holes think it's great and will matter but have no regard for 2nd Amendment. Demographics.

[Steve4102]

That turns my stomach hearing this ideology basically getting worse.  The current california attorney general said the same thing as DA of san francisco a few years ago.  "You can have a gun, but we will come by to make sure you lock it up"

  Politicians and Attorney Generals are only but a small part of the problem.

They can do and say whatever they wish, they can pass Laws that are Unconstitutional  on paper and they can give orders.  These words and Laws only become a Violation of Civil Rights when they are enforced.

There are countless laws still on the books from old that are not only Unconstitutional they border on barbaric.  Nobody or no Organization is fighting to remove these laws of old, they just sit there quietly being ignored and Un-Enforced.

The Problem lies more with those that choose to follow orders and enforce Un-Constitutional laws and orders then with the laws themselves.  Pension and pay before Constitution, that's the problem.

[pacapcop]

I think you just answered your own question. Laws are made in state houses by politicos who took an oath to the Constitution. If the majority spoke up on behalf of gun rights causes within there state, then there would not be laws passed to reflect gun rights being infringed upon. To think law enforcement is going to be some type of savior based on enforcement by laws passed down, well that's naïve at best. Pension or not. Demographics speak for itself.