He makes an interesting argument that Flock cameras violate the 2nd Amendment because they track people going to gun stores, gun ranges, and so they enable the Federal government (we know they have access to Flock data) to make a database of gun owners. As we know, if the... government is ever going to attempt a gun grab, they are going to need a gun owners database. So, does the 2nd Amendment prohibit the government from making a database of gun owners? I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I found there are laws that restrict building such a database, and that the Supreme Court has never reviewed whether such a database violates the Constitution. On whether it is constitutional, some argue that even the Supreme Court is not the final decider of what is or is not Constitutional, since the government's power comes from the people. Popular constitutionalism holds that the people, through elections, juries, protest, and ordinary politics, also interpret the Constitution, and that political means can contest and eventually overturn Court decisions. So keep that in mind, too.show more

Actually Flock cameras violate the 4th Amendment Unreasonable search & seizure

@JesslovesMJK Flock cameras are violating the 4th amendment. They think they’re getting around it because Flock is a private company. But this can be challenged in court because they get government subsidies and provide the government with information they acquire.

@JesslovesMJK That last part especially. If it were illegal for them to go out and collect the data themselves, I'm not sure how they think it's ok to pay someone to do it for them. It's the same thing.

They don't need Flock cameras, they already broke the law and created a database:

Flock can tell them what church, what synagogue, what mosque, what political campaign, what dr, what self help group, which school board meeting etc. But Flock can’t prevent a crime - we already have powerful cameras on public & private properties alike & still the same crime

Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986, which amended 18 U.S.C. § 926 to ban the centralization of records from Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) into a searchable national database.

Without "cause" collection of data is a violation of the 4A. But we need Judges to act for us, not he Bureaucrats. And there should be penalties for abuse.

THROW THE FUCKING BOOK AT THEM. SUE THEM TO DUST. MAY THEY BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IN SHAME AND THEN SUED INTO DESTITUTION.

The 2nd amendment is Not to be infringed. Marbury v Madison 1803 "anything found to be repugnant to the constitution shall be void. That means they can't, if the Supreme Court is not compromised. If so,We the People will have to say No, it is our duty.

Would you trust your worst political enemy with a searchable record of trips to gun stores, churches, and protests? That's the test. Privacy shouldn't depend on your side winning the next election.

Were can I send money to help this go thru? He is absolutely right.

America is no longer a nation and the constitution was destroyed decades ago now

Correct same in Ohio.

The most important thing he stated, by far, is not the flock camera suit, but the correct observation on how the Police-State agenda is progressing in this country... I hope he does write that in the suit, politicians are trying to use law enforcement as willing protection goons.

At some point they will make a national move to “grab” all guns from lawful owners and it will be in the context of massive round ups of all citizens deemed “problems” enroute to global governance.

Undue "search" and seizure.

Don't know how well this argument will hold up, but this had actually also occurred to me. Though I did not get out and publicly make a case for it. 😄

Let's hope he can make it happen.

Interesting spin. I like it

If you have a pending lawsuit, you don't talk publicly about pending lawsuit.

That might be more so for criminal cases? I know people make announcements about civil suits all the time. I'm not an expert, though.

It was more than an announcement, stating your argument in front of the defendants outside of court seems like a bad idea. You are giving them your playbook before the game, and any communication specific to the case should probably go to their legal council.

That is why we can't allow muslims or other America haters from voting. Including illegals !!

👌🤬🇺🇸

Feds have circumvented all laws by using third party data miners. Feds can buy or leave it with the third party to access at any time. Feds have foreign state allies who share this data mining information all the time.

(2) It is unclear whether Flock cameras violate Second Amendment. The problem is that the constitutional question of whether the government may mandate a gun registry or create one indirectly has not been fully litigated or definitively settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Take it to the supreme court

And the first. And the 4th and the 5th.

#PortstLucie

"On whether it is constitutional, some argue that even the Supreme Court is not the final decider of what is or is not Constitutional, since the government's power comes from the people." true, but we can't even agree enough to pass voter id legislation. gotta get through senate.

All police officers are hard core communist low IQ thugs for a criminal government.

(1) He brings up state constitutions, & that's important because many states have stronger protections than the federal constitution (federal constitution sets a floor below which states can't go, but they can go higher).

May the Fourth be with you . And the Second !

totally unconstitutional period

SCOTUS needs to slap down ALPRs. Until then, the grid will only get tighter