Its made me very concerned about public safety if we allow our government to have this power. I actually believe being able to own and use a vehicle freely should be protected under the 2nd amendment.
Im picturing a world where the US could mass disable vehicles based on the owners score in their fancy new palantir database. We should have the right to flee danger and use a vehicle for that.
I also think the second amendment should be applied encryption for the same reason. Encryption is essential to the people's ability to mount a defense against tyranny.
ICE says it can legally enter homes without a warrant
So we’re beyond concern now
Source for this claim, besides the usual exemptions that are available to all law enforcement (ie. exigent circumstances)?
They've come up with a memo saying that non-judicial warrants can let them break in. This has historically been very much not allowed.
Edit: As a quick explanation, this is more or less a separation-of-powers thing. The rule has been that for the executive to enter someone's home they need a warrant from a judge, a member of the judicial branch. They now say that an "administrative warrant" is enough, issued by an immigration judge -- but immigration judges are just executive branch employees, so this is saying that the executive can decide on its own when it wants to break into your house.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26499371-dhs-ice-mem...
The word for it is cherry-picking and it is better classified as a fallacy.
The people who replied to you provided the source: upvoted them.
Context and discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGr-yWEu0hc
The TL/DR: administrative warrant vs an actual "signed off by a judge" warrant
It's the same API being used on your phone to remote start / unlock / open windows etc.
It's not unlikely to think that ICE has mandated these companies to corporate.
It's been very long established that nobody has a "right" to operate a motor vehicle. It's something you are permitted to do under the terms of a license, and it's fairly regulated (though not as much as in some other countries).
Then when I get to my car I can see the broken window and report it or at least know someone broke into my car. With remote entry law enforcement or ice can get in and out potentially without notice.
Just because police/ice/thieves/etc can break down my door and enter my house does not mean I am on board with giving any of them a key.
Sure you do, in private nobody can be prevented. You need a license and insurance to drive on public roads.
Just now many people have a) private land and b) private land in sufficient quantity and state that you can actually drive a car on it?
How many recreational users have private land in sufficient quantities?
You’ll sometimes also see small communities with private roads that allow unlicensed vehicles, such as retirement communities, but they often have their own standards for what is allowed.
Your take on “rights” if wrong to the point of insanity. You literally don’t know what rights are and should stop talking.
"Warning, you are approaching a closed zone. Stop your advance. Compliance is mandatory. Mobility privileges for this vehicle will be revoked"
>They are pushing the Ten Commandments in Texas and Louisiana schools
>ICE agents to perform warrantless home invasions, and arresting US Citizens or their kids in below freezing temperatures
>This is a government that does not believe in the constitution.
A brief fact check: Elián González was and is not a US citizen, nor was he the child of US citizens, nor was he arrested by ICE, nor was the raid that resulted in his capture performed without a warrant.
I might wait to hear about him until I encounter someone with more accurate information.
> Wait till you hear about a kid named Elian Gonzalez
Elian's mother died at sea, trying to reach the US from Cuba with Elian. Elian's father sought to bring the child back to Cuba, but an uncle in Miami refused to surrender custody. Obviously, barring something unusual, a father has custody of their child and the INS, courts, and Department of Justice agreed. There was an extensive legal process and also mediation.
It became a partisan political issue and after all that the uncle still refused to surrender Elian. Law enforcement forcibly removed the child and gave custody to the father.
I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy.
No, but recent actions in the last 20 years, and certainly the last year have absolutely proven to me the Executive Branch, as I've been saying since the Reagan administration, has always had too much power.
> I don't see how that is related to the current warrantless home invasion policy.
While I agree, the point is the methods are the same as they were back then. INS and Border Patrol is exempt from (some) warrants. Border Patrol handled that raid. Badly.
I mean, we can talk about other Executive branches abusing their power all day (Waco; Homeland Security/TSA searches; DEA Searches; Iran-Contra; CIA Operations in the 60s-80's) etc... the point is, nothing ever changes.
INS does not exist. While an agency may be exempt from (some) warrants, it is an undisputed fact that the raid that resulted in the capture of Elián González included a valid search warrant.
This is so tiresome when people who don't have a single tank think they are in a position to allow people with tanks to do this or that.
Things happen because their value for people in power exceeds the value of your consent. And you have fewer and fewer ways to make your consent any more valuable to cross the threshold of relevancy.
I know it's an attractive illusion to believe that people have a say. But it's time to shake it off because this veil is one of the things used for control.
There are in fact privately owned tanks in the US.
They likely could cause a lot of trouble for a local police force, but would not stand up to any infantry force in the world.
So in an actual conflict with the U.S. government, none of those tanks would be more than symbolic. And whole a general gorilla insurrection in the U.S. would be nasty, examples like Wako demonstrate that even mid-sized stands would be severely overwhelmed.
The whole idea that a Second-Amendment rebellion in the U.S., absent the military joining on the side of the rebellion, is just a fantasy.
Just because the government has tanks does not mean "we have tanks and nukes, therefore we'll win" has proven true across military history.
As Ukraine has demonstrated, a shaped charge and consumer drone is highly effective against even heavy mechanized armor. ERA doesn't work well for multiple hits, and drones and HMX/RDX are cheap.
"We knew they didn't have weapons of mass destruction when we rolled up and didn't immediately get gassed"
Refineries and factories don't work without people and are exceedingly vulnerable to locals.
It is, therefore, not remotely relevant to your post starting this whole thread off saying that the consent of the governed is irrelevant and all you need is tanks.
I have a wonderful cargo bike (urban arrow - splurge purchase for my 35th birthday and second kid) - I use it for most in-city transportation tasks, including picking up kids from daycare/school, groceries, trips to restaurants, etc.
I also have a 2011 truck with ~200k miles on it. It's well take care of, and shows no signs of stopping any time soon. It hauls stuff from home improvement stores, help family move, and takes us on vacation.
I've been debating getting bumper stickers for each of them along the lines of:
"My other ebike is a truck" - for the bike
and
"My other truck is an ebike" - for the truck
Older vehicles (depending on the platform) often use common parts that are shared even across manufacturers. And third party manufacturers keep cranking out new stock for them.
I am hoping that this type of system develops for simple no-frills electric vehicles over time. Although laws like the one mentioned here keep piling up, increasing vehicle complexity and cost of maintenance.
I do agree that the vehicle should not be the default transportation even if I do consider myself a "car guy".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGx3HSjKDo
Car centrism TAKES AWAY independence of kids, elderly, and disabled people.
It was a combination of federal push for highways and consumer demand for greater distance and easier travel.
Everyone always assumes that individual choices and consumer behavior drives this stuff, and then they wonder why nothing changes even though we all started using reusable tote bags and LED bulbs. Stop blaming the consumer!
(The DoD is the largest institutional polluter in the world, by the way.)
Groceries? Yep. School? Yep. Commuting? Yep. Etc.
They aren't viable for hauling multi-ton loads, or covering long distances, that's about it.
Avid cyclist here.
* Extreme Weather: Severe heat, heavy snow, or torrential rain can make biking unsafe or impractical without specialized gear and high physical endurance.
* Accessibility & Mobility Issues: Individuals with certain physical disabilities or chronic health conditions may find traditional cycling impossible. (This also affects an aging population.)
* Time Constraints: For those with "trip-chaining" needs (e.g., daycare drop-off → work → grocery store → gym), the extra time required for cycling can be prohibitive.
* Infrastructure: Older adults are more sensitive to "heavy traffic" and "lack of safe places." Seniors don't stop cycling because they can't do it, but because they don't feel safe in traffic. (Good argument for upgrading roadways.)
* Care-giving: When parents become dependent on their children, often the children need to shuttle their parents around. A parent with dementia who escaped into the neighbourhood can be rapidly collected and ushered home in a car, not so much a bike.
* Theft & Vandalism: I've never had a car stolen. Two locked bikes, on the other hand...
The correct argument here is "if bicycles become the dominant transportation mode, then the government will absolutely mandate kill switches for them too." "Bicycles don't have software" hasn't been true for years. E-bikes and wireless deraillers have been around a long time.
My argument to my own post is that cameras that track cars and license plates could easily be reconfigured to track bikes and pedestrians. In that case there's no transportation mode that will save you from surveillance. The cameras have to go.
Also, why the hell have you got wireless derailleurs? What is the point? What possible advantage can they have over perfectly normal mechanical ones?
The same is true for many states in the US, perhaps even most of the US.
> Advocate for safe biking infrastructure in your area.
We built dangerous highways. We can build bikeways as well.
Moreover, time is a limited resource. Even adding 15 minutes here and there take away time I would have to spend with family, work on a project, etc.
I once lived somewhere that was half an hour from the store by car. Thankfully that isn’t the case anymore.
A vehicle (presumably a car, since bikes are vehicles too) gets you and your stuff from point A to point B. Bikes do that too, though at a smaller scale.
If your commute or your errands aren't excessively long or require the use of a controlled-access highway, a bike's a perfectly fine alternative. The limiting factors are seasonal road or bike path maintenance and the discipline of other road users.
I hadn't heard of the requirement before. Mandatory registration originally seems to have been intended to address bike theft. All bicycles sold in California must have a serial number. A significant number of cities (most?) had ordinances requiring registration. But few people knew about it and even fewer registered their bikes.
You drive and when within 3 miles your car dies.
You can start it again and drive away, turning around and leaving, but if you go further towards the capitol it dies again.
The next day the press reports that the planned protest was very sparsely attended.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/volume-172/iss...
You're stuck, no cell signal, good chance of hypothermia.
Some of the earlier EVs I tried had lane-keeping assist so brutal that it was like trying to steer a car with a broken power steering pump belt, if it didn't want you to change lanes - genuinely dangerous.
The Kia EV I tried a few weeks ago just felt like it was tramlining a bit when I changed lanes without indicating (no real need to indicate, on a completely empty road).
The hardware is required in new cars. It's illegal to make it report false values or for someone other than the driver to record. When you press the start button, an LED shines into your skin and records fingerprint hash, and blood alcohol. This data is recorded/reported only when a public road has been entered or crossed, and erased from local storage in 24 hours.
The reporting is optional. You can turn it off. You set it up to report to your insurance company. If you don't, your insurance rates will probably rise.
What does society get out of this? People are strongly encouraged not to drink and drive. They get a clear and unambiguous signal if they are over the legal limit or not. We get some insurance data about how many people are drinking and driving nonetheless, and their actual accident rates. Insurance rates can be higher for people at higher risk, and lower for those who are not. There's no emergency situation where someone can't activate their car. Drivers' "freedom" to drive without insurance or without historical monitoring isn't infringed. You can still drive drunk on private property without consequence.
We could probably also partially do away with constructive DUI (DUI where you are drunk, but asleep in the vehicle and in possession of the keys). You can set a maximum startup BAC in the car computer. You can lower it, effective in 8 hours. Your sober self can agree that future you shouldn't drive drunk, and even if you sleep in your car, the police can't show that you were in control of the vehicle.