Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/21/2006 10:31:02 PM EDT
Ok, so it's only moot court but welcome to California. But hey, at least they don't want to take them away!

MOOT COURT MULLS THE HYPOTHETICAL
Tracking devices, national security topics of discussion
By ANDRE BRISCOE
Herald Staff Writer

Is it reasonable for the United States government to implant a tracking device under the skin of a person who owns an assault weapon for the sake of national security? Can the government outlaw some weapons in order to protect the public safety in a post-Sept. 11 world?

That was the topic of discussion at the Monterey College of Law's 20th annual Heisler Moot Court competition at the World Theater at CSU-Monterey Bay on Friday night.

Friday marked the first time in the college's 20 years of moot court competition that the issue of privacy has been raised.

Students working in teams of two presented the case before Justice Arthur Gilbert of the 2nd District Court of Appeal, 6th District Court of Appeal Justice Wendy Clark Duffy, and retired Monterey County Judge Richard M. Silver.

The fictional law at issue Friday allowed the purchase of assault weapons but required that buyers must have an implanted microchip implanted not only in the weapon, but under the gun owner's skin.
According to the hypothetical, the two chips combined would allow the Department of Homeland Security to monitor movement of the owner and the weapon.

Lynn Maddock and Eric Fonferek, law school students "representing" the "National Gun Association," argued their case first. Maddock said the law was unconstitutional because it violated the right "to keep and bear arms" under the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"Gun ownership in the United States is a traditional liberty," Maddock told the panel. She argued that the guns could be used for a variety of reasons, including as collector's items.
Fonferek argued that the American people had a right to privacy and that several amendments within the Constitution create a "zone of privacy" for Americans.
"Putting the chip in the weapon is one thing," said Silver. "But the question is, is the government going too far in putting the chip in the individual as well as the weapon? Where do we draw the line?"
Gilbert elaborated on the question.

"What about the ability of the government to track a person away from the weapon?" he said.
Arguing for the government were Judith Derenzo and John Maddock. Derenzo argued that the Second Amendment does not give a person the right to have a weapon, especially an assault weapon with the power to kill numbers of people and can be used by terrorists to inflict tremendous harm.
Maddock, who is Lynn Maddock's husband, said that today's climate outweighed right-to-privacy claims by the National Gun Association.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:38:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 10:39:24 PM EDT by fossil_fuel]

Putting the chip in the weapon is one thing," said Silver. "But the question is, is the government going too far in putting the chip in the individual as well as the weapon? Where do we draw the line?"


what the hell is this garbage?

you know you're in trouble when even the "pro-gun" side of the debate doesn't try to argue against putting a RFID in the weapon.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:43:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fossil_fuel:

Putting the chip in the weapon is one thing," said Silver. "But the question is, is the government going too far in putting the chip in the individual as well as the weapon? Where do we draw the line?"


what the hell is this garbage?

you know you're in trouble when even the "pro-gun" side of the debate doesn't try to argue against putting a RFID in the weapon.



Try to put that in me or my rifle.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:46:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 10:47:59 PM EDT by LANCEMAN]
If I own 17 "assault weapons" does that mean I need to get 17 chips implanted ? If I have to get 17 chips implanted I wonder if they vibrate when I get too far away from the weapon and if so can I request that they be implated in my groin area ? Is the chip submersible to guard against boating accidents ?

Gotta love Kalifornistan schools, these future lawyers will probably be judges one day
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:50:24 PM EDT
.... Yah like that is ever going too happen.....
Maybe after i'm long dead in 50 yrs or so.....
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:51:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:55:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/21/2006 10:55:54 PM EDT by Triumph955i]
Welp. This will cause me to buy a case of ammo as a result of a knee jerk reaction.
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 10:58:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Triumph955i:
Welp. This will cause me to buy a case of ammo as a result of a knee jerk reaction.



I'm glad I'm not the only one...
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 11:11:45 PM EDT
BULL
Link Posted: 1/21/2006 11:50:55 PM EDT
some people are just full of shit and there is nothing you can do about it
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 12:21:19 AM EDT
California. Figures...

Link Posted: 1/22/2006 12:24:29 AM EDT
I'd say they're living in Fantasyland, but since this story comes out of California that's just stating the obvious.

With any luck blood will be spilled long before it gets to that point, because once it has gotten to that point, it's already game over.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 12:28:52 AM EDT
That was a disturbing glimpse into our future.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 12:32:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Badass03:
some people are just full of shit and there is nothing you can do about it



Until they get into power and can't be reasoned with, in which case hanging them will do nicely.
Link Posted: 1/22/2006 1:19:55 AM EDT
I would not dismiss this so quickly. You have just been given a snapshot of the "new" thinking. My bet is they are very ambitious, and at least one will end up in office somewhere. Not to mention, this is only one school...



This fight we are in, is nowhere near a victory. Forward to 2016... Those kids are your senators
Top Top