NY State Senator Not Quite Sure Which Constitutional Amendment Doesn't Apply When Parents Go Looking for Guns in Their Daughters' Jewelry Boxes

New York State Sen. Eric Adams (D) has taken to the YouTubes with a helpful video about stop gun violence.

Watch the whole thing. You won't be sorry. (Actually, you will be.): 

For those unable to watch the video, Adams' solution is to rifle through your kids' belongings. Using his own home to illustrate his point, Adams suggests searching everywhere for guns—a possibility he illustrates by pulling a small gun out of a pink flowered jewelry box at the video's 2:00 minute mark and from a decorative pillowcase at the 3:30 mark. Half a minute after the jewelry gun find, he extracts a used crack pipe from a backpack. While Adams graciously allows that it's "quite possible" the kid found the pipe on the street, he suggests using it as a "discussion piece." Then he pulls a huge bag of weed out of babydoll's butt.

A sad strings soundtrack rounds out the video nicely, but it's the cut-together kicker than makes the whole sad spectacle politically relevant. Not once, not twice, but three times, Adams—a New York state senator—reminds us that you should feel free to search and seize contraband from your kids because "There are no First Amendment rights in your home."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    These are the poeple that make the laws that people like the ones who beat the shit out of Kelly Thomas enforce...

    Is the weeping Statue of Liberty appropriate here?

  • ||

    Are you saying that the people who Dumpy looks toward for moral authority might be total idiots?

  • Cliché Bandit||

    who is this stucker of fix of which you speak?

  • cynical||

    To be fair, if he didn't look to legislators to define his job requirements, he'd just be a vigilante with a poorly concealed secret identity. Though that would probably be better, as vigilantes would likely focus on crimes with victims.

  • Fire Tiger||

    You do realize that for the most part, the legislators have very little to do with it. The laws give loose guidelines, and most of the rest is determined by policy and union contracts.

  • cynical||

    I thought we were talking about the part that gives people a pretense for creating an encounter that will lead to beating the shit out of someone, not the rules governing the encounter itself.

  • ||

    nice strawman. i do not and never have looked to the legislature for moral authority about ANYTHING

    do you say anything that is not a fucking lie?

    besides your obsession w/me, that's lame

  • tarran||

    I'm confused.

    You've repeatedly claimed that you bear no moral responsibility for people you arrest for victimless "crimes" like marijuana selling.

    You've repeatedly asserted that the responsibility lies with legislators and demanded that we elect new ones for you to obey.

    Now you're claiming that you don't look to them for moral authority.

    So are you arguing that you don't care about the morality of your actions?

  • ||

    i am saying something entirely uncomplicated.

    the legislature has the authoritah to enact often very unjust laws, very immoral laws and very bad policy

    i have NEVER looked to them for moral authority.

    i am saying the responsibility to pass good laws rests with the legislature. i did NOT say they DO pass good laws, or that the fact that they pass a law makes it a good law (a la nixon logick).

    these really aren't difficult concepts

    i have stated repeatedly that some of the laws i enforce are astoundingly

    1) stupid
    2) immoral
    3) bad policy

  • tarran||

    I'm sorry if I am irritating you; I am finding your moral code very fascinating.

    Just a few more questions:

    You freely state that you have chosen to place yourself in an organization where you are directed to do immoral things. You claim to a be a moral man. So how do you reconcile these things?

    Do you feel that the immoral things you do refering pimps and marijuana dealers for prosecution, are outweighed by the good you do, like clapping the cuffs on someone with a penchant for aggravated assault so that they can network with other people like themselves?

    Or do you have a philosophy that law enforcement is the price we pay for civilization, and like the antagonist in Serenity, you do the disgusting immoral things needed to be done so that everybody else can live nice lives?

  • ||

    this has been SO endlessly discussed, i am not going to reinvent the wheel.

    i'll be brief.

    I have to enforce SOME immoral laws. that's a reality i face. i'm pragmatic.

    on the balance, i think the work of law enforcement, and my career in particular, are overwhelmingly a net benefit to society.

    or i wouldn't do it.

    i would lay down my life to protect my fellow man (former lifeguard and firefighter), and I absolutely love helping people. and my job allows me the opportunity to do so.

    but yes, sometimes i have to enforce shit i don't agree with.

    i would rather those that do at least accept this tradeoff.

    and please spare me the nuremberg ref's. been rehashed over and over

  • ||

    oh, and btw. i have done exactly ONE prostitution referral in 20+ yrs. she got a $100 fine. omg

    as for MJ cases, i have done exactly one in the last 12 months.

    drug enforcement is a TINY part of my job, and misdemeanor mj enforcement many officers including myself can and do offer warning instead of arrest

    i can absolteuyl live with that

  • Joe R.||

    I mugged a guy in a dark alley yesterday, but I only got $100 so I guess it's OK.

  • ||

    logick fail..

  • Neu Mejican||

    Are there any amendments to the New York state constitution? If so, what is the first one?

  • ||

    As with most state constitutions, the state bill of rights is part of the main body of the NYS constitution, not an amendment. The federal BoR takes the form of amendments because the framers of the original Constitution didn't think one was necessary for such a limited federal govt, while state govts were always expected to have broad powers and thus naturally needed to have restrictions placed on them ab initio.

  • Neu Mejican||

    You took my comment/question a bit more seriously than intended.

  • ||

    One never knows with you.

  • free2booze||

    The guy didn't say that the state has the right to search a persons home. He is saying that a parent, under the confines of their own home, has the authority to search what ever the hell they want.

  • Bar Taker||

    ... and you completely missed the point. He misidentified the amendment.

  • free2booze||

    Who cares if he misidentified the amendment? Yes, it's a technical error on his part, but how does that invalidate the overall theme of this video?

    For fuck sake, the guy is merely advocating personal responsibility to parents, in what is probably a high crime area in Brooklyn. As he is only a state senator, I can find it in my heart to grant him some leeway for saying "first" instead of "fourth". After all, the US Constitution was intended to be a compact between the national government and the states, not the states and it's citizens.

  • ||

    What part of "We the People" do you not understand?

  • Mr Whipple||

    The part that omitted "me" and "I".

    Collectivist much?

  • ||

    Wait, it's collectivist to use the pronoun "we" now?

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Yup. We've agreed on this rule.

  • skr||

    LOL, "a place to secrete drugs". I want a baby doll that secretes drugs, that would be awesome. Sadly, i think he meant secret.

  • ||

    Stop licking that toad!

  • skr||

    what also secretes drugs?

    umm a piece of wood?

    a toad?

    Gooood. A toad. Therefore...

    ummm the babydoll is..... a..... toad?

    Gooooood.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

  • skr||

    how did this become a reply? must be those drug secretions.

  • cynical||

    "Who cares if he misidentified the amendment?"

    Katherine Mangu-Ward. Obviously.

  • yonemoto||

    As he is only a state senator, I can find it in my heart to grant him some leeway for saying "first" instead of "fourth".

    Clearly this video was edited. I don't grant him leeway to spew out shit at taxpayer expense.

  • Robert||

    The state bill of rights is art. 1.

  • ||

    Nice little insight into this asshole's concepts of privacy and rights. Fuck him. I'm sure glad I'm not his kid.

  • ||

    He should have said "there are no rights in your home" and avoided the question entirely.

  • ||

    Those amendments all look the same to me.

  • Ezra Klein||

    Me, too!

  • Aqua Buddha||

    Then he pulls a huge bag of weed out of babydoll's butt

    But enough about Epi's weekend....

  • ||

    Not weed. Coke. Or maybe the crack pipe.

    "Hi. I'm a recovering crackhead. This is my retarded sister that I take care of. I'd like some welfare, please."

  • ||

    Ok, so his grasp of the constitution might be weak. But really isn't one of the whole points of libertarianism that parental involvement is much better than the long arm of the law? Watching and guiding kids is what parents are for. The problems start when badges and black robes get involved.

  • rts||

    "Watching and guiding" is pretty far from "regularly tossing cells".

    To each his own, I guess.

  • Matt||

    No argument there. I just want to make sure the distinction between "no-knock SWAT raid" and "Son, no pot as long as you live in my house" isn't lost.

  • Tman||

    Ok, so his grasp of the constitution might be weak.

    "Might"? He doesn't know the difference between the fourth and the first? And HE'S A FUCKING SENATOR?????

    It's like a pro baseball player not knowing how many outs there are in a normal inning. It isn't "weak", it's inexcusably disgraceful.

    But really isn't one of the whole points of libertarianism that parental involvement is much better than the long arm of the law?

    Sure, but what does that have to do with this idiot? Because libertarians prefer less (or no) intrusives laws in to private family matters does not mean that the Bill of Rights is suddenly erased.

    The problems start when badges and black robes get involved.

    No, the problem starts when we elect FUCKING MORONS like this guy to public office.

  • ||

    Bah, he is just a state senator. Besides it would be racist to expect him to know stuff he should have learned in 8th grade or been able to Google in less than 5 minutes.

  • Tman||

    Did you know that "where's there's bullets there's a possible gun"?

    True story.

  • Robert||

    I couldn't see whether those were bullets or cartridges. I took it that he was suggesting you examine the walls for embedded bullets.

  • Mainer||

    Were the bullets in a clip ?

  • Matt||

    Sure, but what does that have to do with this idiot? Because libertarians prefer less (or no) intrusives laws in to private family matters does not mean that the Bill of Rights is suddenly erased.

    Because this idiot (no disagreement there) is speaking about parental searches. The bill of rights constrains the government, not parents. He shouldn't have even brought it up, it's a category error.

  • Tman||

    I agree that parents can do whatever the hell they want to their kids stuff in their own home, but this video was just embarrassing. If they added music and cut edits, it confirms that someone actually EDITED this catastrophe.

    That means that he may not have been the dumbest guy in the room.

  • ||

    i've actually had parents ask me about this. some of them actually do NOT think they have the right to listen in on children's phone calls, or search their "private property" or put a snoop program in their computer.

  • Trident||

    Depends on how many bills the kids are paying.

  • Dan||

    As long has he is aware there is a right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures I see no reason to care if he knows what amendment number it is.

  • Sudden||

    Does it occur to you that if the people in charge of writing laws and approving judicial appointments can't identify the appropriate amendment that protects said activity, that activity may be threatened?

  • ||

    damn skippy!

  • Trident||

    A politician telling you how to raise your kids, is like a crook (but i repeat myself) telling you how to raise your kids.

    Even if he was right, you'd tell him to mind his own fucking business and to take his hand out of your pocket while he's at it.

    And that's beside the point that some people actually trust their kids. A strange thing for the meddlesome nanny class this politician belongs to, i know.

  • ||

    Further proof that we will never reach Peak Retard.

  • New York State Legislature||

    Just you wait and see.

  • rts||

    So... the Senator's kids had two guns, a crack pipe and weed in his house?

    (I'm in the "unable to watch the video" category).

  • Aqua Buddha||

    The kids are sounding like the "renegade cop" in the commercial, who puts down an increasing large pile of weapons when asked to turn in his badge, ending w/ a bazooka.

  • Federal Dog||

    And ammunition.

  • rts||

    Party at Senator Adams' house!

  • ||

    Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Dallas with all that stuff.

  • JD the Elder||

    Oh joy, this is my district. What do you want to bet the Senator was technically committing at least one crime when he made this video? I will say that he is at least not hardly the worst NY government official - although NY sets that bar awfully high. (So high that the Reason server squirrels get irritated when I try to put in as many links as I'd like to.)

  • ||

    The punchline is, even if he'd gotten the right amendment number, he'd still be wrong!

  • free2booze||

    "The punchline is, even if he'd gotten the right amendment number, he'd still be wrong!"

    He wrong for saying that children are not protected from unreasonable searches by their parents?

  • Bar Taker||

    "NY State Senator Not Quite Sure Which Constitutional Amendment Doesn't Apply When Parents Go Looking for Guns in Their Daughters' Jewelry Boxes"

  • ||

    Buddy, there are Fourth Amendment rights in your home, even if they don't restrict parental activity.

    He should have said "You don't have to follow the Fourth Amendment in your home" or something like that.

  • free2booze||

    And right before he made the statement, he said that "No one can tell you that you don't have the right to search your home".

    Maybe he should have stated it differently, just like maybe you should unclinch your ass a little, and consider his words based on the context in which they were stated.

  • ||

    My grandmother told me to unclench my ass once. Once.

  • Chuck Norris||

    "... and this time, it's PERSONAL!"

  • ||

    He wrong for saying that children are not protected from unreasonable searches by their parents?

    That might be what you wish he said, and might even be what he wishes he said, but that's not what he actually said.

  • ||

    He wrong for saying that children are not protected from unreasonable searches by their parents?

    That might be what you wish he said, and might even be what he wishes he said, but that's not what he actually said.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    My home is MY home. My kids live in it and I am responsible for them. If I want to, I will search there shit.

    If they need a gun, they know where to get one. In MY room.

    Except for my 18 year old. He has a few in his room as well...

  • BigT||

    "There are no First Amendment rights in your home."

    No 4th amendment rights, either.

  • LK||

    Agreed.

    The 1st and 4th are restrictions on the government, not on parents in their own home.

  • ||

    ""The 1st and 4th are restrictions on the government, not on parents in their own home.""

    A parent can search any part of their house they want.

  • Greer||

    Glad to see that I'm not the first to say it. If I search my kids room, I'm not violating ANY Constitutional amendment.

    Frankly I find it really weak that you'd post this video as an example of Constitutional ignorance because calling it that is ignorant.

    This video has problems. When you are in a combative, distrutful relationship with your kids, you have big problems. But to say that searching their bedroom is a violation of the 4th amendment is really stupid.

  • ||

    But to say that searching their bedroom is a violation of the 4th amendment is really stupid.

    I agree. Who is saying this?

  • man with a plan||

    RTFA asswipe.

    he has the fucking amendment wrong. Take your fuckin outrage about what is ignorant and find some place to stuff it.

  • Greer||

    calm the fuck down.

    I see that I missed the point about the correct number of the amendment.

    The headline seemed to infer that searching your kids room was a violation of the bill of rights and the early comments excoriated him for being a predictable statist Nazi, advocating illegal searches. As I said, I find that stupid.

  • man with a plan||

    fucking moron. No one said that, it's just you using your ass for brains.

  • Greer||

    calm the fuck down. Jeez

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Don't make him whip a Glock out from his daughter's jewelry box!

  • Lib'Tarian||

    We can't calm down. This is how we think.

  • Aqua Buddha||

    But abortion rights still exist in the home regardless of what the parents think, right?

  • Progressives||

    Abortion
    Voting
    Gay Marriage
    Healthcare
    a Living Wage
    Not to be offended

    yup, all of them.

  • Shorter Progressives||

    As much of your money as we can waste on failed, unconstitutional programs, too.

  • Brendan Perez||

    Yes. Parents shouldn't be able to force their kids to have a kid anymore then can forcibly tattoo them, sign them for a 100 year mortgage, donate their organs, sign them for high risk clinical trials, etc.

  • ||

    The only way a parent would be forcing their daughter to have a kid would be if daddy fucked/raped her. Which is already illegal last I knew.

  • Mensan||

    But abortion rights still exist in the home regardless of what the parents think, right?

    Only if they have wire hangers in the closet.

  • Bingo||

    The best part is when he pulls a single bullet from out behind the family photo. LOL

  • Jeff||

    Wow. I saw Manowar in concert just a few years ago, and Eric has really let himself go since then.

  • Aqua Buddha||

    Adams suggests searching everywhere for guns—a possibility he illustrates by pulling a small gun out of a pink flowered jewelry box at the video's 2:00 minute mark and from a decorative pillowcase at the 3:30 mark.

    What is the good Senator doing at home that makes his family feel the need to be so heavily armed?

  • rts||

    Legislating.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help! FREEZE -- !!!"

  • Federal Dog||

    Makes you wonder how many cops think the First Amendment is relevant to searches and seizures.

  • Federal Dog||

    ""Might"? He doesn't know the difference between the fourth and the first? And HE'S A FUCKING SENATOR?????"

    More to the point, he was a cop.

  • free2booze||

    Maybe he's an originalist, and views the Constitution as a compact between the individual states and the federal government, not the state government and the people. Since he is a state senator, the US Constitution is of no importance to him.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Since he is a state senator, the US Constitution is of no importance to him.


    I think you're being a tad facetious, but I hope he at least cares about the tenth amendment.

  • ||

    TEN times better than saying the government should rifle through your kids stuff. I'll take a million public service messages advocating parental tyranny over one fucking laws that lets the government into my house.

  • Jack the Reaper||

    +1

  • Nimtrix||

    What do you want? Respectful kids running around and listening to their parents?

  • Mensan||

    You entirely missed the point.

  • fish||

    I was fine until he headed towards the bookshelf...at which point that Chris Rock bit intruded rather forcefully.

    I'm really trying to give this guy the benefit of the doubt....but c'mon employ a fact checker and establish a little editorial control. Remember the 1st amendment doesn't apply when you are making an informational video.

  • Progressives||

    This post is so Racist

  • Cliché Bandit||

    This is a great opportunity to point out why it is important to educate your children in proper gun safety and use. I mean a pillow case? That isn't comfortable. And 1 bullet behind a picture? That should be in the weapon (chambered or not, personal preference). When was the last time those weapons were cleaned and oiled? As for the drugs, if you don't store your weed in a humidor it will dry out and nobaody wants stale weed.

  • Bingo||

    Maybe there's a humidor hidden in the doll's ass, we just couldn't see it.

  • free2booze||

    After watching the video, I don't see what the issue is. The Senator was saying to adults, that they have the authority to search anywhere, and anything, in their own home. This seems in line with basic property rights.

  • Bar Taker||

    "NY State Senator Not Quite Sure Which Constitutional Amendment Doesn't Apply When Parents Go Looking for Guns in Their Daughters' Jewelry Boxes"

  • Cold Side of Pillow||

    The First Amendment does not apply to moronic PSAs like this one.

  • ||

    Yea son, you go ahead and tell him he got the amendments wrong when he finds that weed in your blow up sex doll. Then tell me how the back of his hand tastes like victory.

  • Cold Side of Pillow||

    I was caught red-handed with my blow-up sex doll before I had a chance to actually hide my weed in it.

  • Anthony Weiner||

    True story!

  • fish||

    ...and tell him he got the amendments wrong when he finds that weed in your blow up sex doll.

    Humidor...as mentioned in a previous post....we call her a humidor. She is never used for any other purpose....honest.

  • Cold Side of Pillow||

    Agreed; dry-ducking is no fun.

  • free2booze||

    At the 51 second mark:

    What I would like to show here, is to empower parents on how to search a room inside their home.

    Why is Mangu-Ward getting her panties in a bunch over this?

  • ||

    Because of the amendment confusion and the ridiculously overbroad nature of his statement even if he had the number right.

  • free2booze||

    I understand goofing on the guy for not knowing his Constitutional amendments, but not to the point of trivializing his overall message.

    The guy represents a district on Brooklyn. I'll go out on a limb, and guess that some areas in his district have a problem with guns and drugs. He's trying to encourage parents to take more personal responsibility for their home, and their children. But, who cares about that. We should flush his entire message down the toilet, because he said "first" instead of "fourth".

  • cynical||

    He isn't just some random asshole, knowledge of the incorporated parts of the U.S. constitution is necessary to do his job properly.

  • Bar Taker||

    "NY State Senator Not Quite Sure Which Constitutional Amendment Doesn't Apply When Parents Go Looking for Guns in Their Daughters' Jewelry Boxes"

  • hmm||

    The sheer stupidity?

  • Patooey||

    Don't allow gub'ment to control our kids.

    But also don't allow us to control our own kids ??

    That's apprently an official L(l)ibertarian position eh ??

    All righty then.

    Any day now. Any day now. Libs will take over the country.

    How long you guys been saying that ?

  • Spang||

    Yes. It is the "official" position. Check the handbook, asshole.

  • ||

    Fucking strawmen, how do they burn?

  • ||

    Everything else failed, so we're going all-in on the 16-17 y.o. rebellious teenager vote.

  • Number 2||

    Check out the 1:05 mark. Does he really say, "You WRITE the constitution," when he meant to say, "You read the constitution?"

  • Number 2||

    Later comes this beauty: "Your house is always open to inspection by your house..."

  • Tman||

    I'd bring up how much I hate "pitchers" being used instead of "PICTURES" but that's like an automatic RACISM demerit.

  • ||

    I'd stock up on weapons as well if my dad made us watch movies on an old Coleco monitor.

  • squishua||

    I'd feel alot better if he had said "(4th) amendment doesn't apply to parents searching their own house" rather than "the (4th) amendment doesn't apply in your home."

    Freudian slip?

  • Greer||

    valid, though nit picky, point.

  • squishua||

    Libertarians nit picky? Pshaw.

  • AlgerHiss||

    Anything written by Katherine Mangu-Ward gets my attention: She's intellectual.....and a hottie!

  • ||

    If he really knew the constitution he'd know that there is no such thing as an "illegal handgun."

    /constitutional scholar

  • ¢||

    I'm sure glad I'm not his kid.

    You undervalue being able to carry around a rubber butt full of weed, crack, and guns and get away with it because you're a senator's kid.
    You don't even need to put it in a butt! That's just style. And you get to have it.

  • Zuo||

    Hey, he puts the items back where he found them. Search but not seizure. Pretty considerate dude.

  • News Flash||

    Voters elect politicians they deserve.

    Film at eleven!

  • hmm||

    During WWII people secreted Jews in a Jewery box.

  • yonemoto||

    lacist.

  • hmm||

    Is he saying 1st amendment when he means 4th? Or am I missing something?

  • hmm||

    Sorry, I just couldn't believe someone would make and edit a video and not catch the mistake.

  • cynical||

    You forgot that the first amendment is the only one that the left still acknowledges, albeit in a crippled and useless form.

  • hmm||

    I always inspect what I expect.

    Jesus christ this guy is dumber than my dog.

  • hmm||

    Someone mirror this fast, or it's going to go the way of the Dodo.

  • Old Mexican||

    Not once, not twice, but three times, Adams — a New York state senator — reminds us that you should feel free to search and seize contraband from your kids because "There are no First Amendment rights in your home."


    THat's right: No child of mine can make any law that purports to establish a state religion. So there!

  • hmm||

    Fuckin' kids and their new fangled religions...

  • Eric Cartman||

    "But, Mooooooooooooom! ALL the kids are doing it, now -- !!!"

  • ||

    Give the guy a break. His intent in this video is clearly to advocate for responsible parenting Sure it's silly in parts. Sure, you could say he said 1st amendment when he means the 4th. But we're talking about a short youtube video from a state senator here. He's just a regular guy, trying to get parents to intervene if they suspect their kid is doing something illegal. If you asked 10 poeple on the streets of NY how many of them do you think would even know what the 4th amendment was?

    Put within the context of the governmental abuses discussed every day on HnR, this is utterly irrelevant. Seems like an attempt make a guy look dumb who really hasn't hurt anyone or advocated anything un-libertarian (that I saw in the 1st 2 minutes).

    Bad form HnR.

  • hmm||

    Making fun of stupid people for doing stupid things in public is never bad form. Especially when they commit such offenses to video.

  • LK||

    I think it is "bad form" for KMW. When I take the time to read something from KMW I've come expect some level of quality, an expectation which she has earned. She failed on this one. Noted for now, but no big deal either.

  • hmm||

    So you're upset she posted a funny video of a politician and 22 year veteran of the NYP confusing the first and fourth amendments?

    Seriously? That stick must be up there...

  • Yawn||

    You don't take criticism of your overlords very well.

  • hmm||

    I have a paternalisticly intrinsic aversion to stupidity and uptight silliness.

  • hmm||

    BTW, the phrase "illegal hand gun" is pretty un-libertarian in just about any usage.

  • Greer||

    I agree, find someone truly in need of riducule rather than looking petty for razzing this guy.

  • Bar Taker||

    Every politician and police officer is in need of ridicule. This one is a double whammy.

    Besides, it is a blog post. It is not like it prevents her from ridiculing others as well.

  • hmm||

    He's doing the Marist College Political Science Department proud.

  • Brendan Perez||

    The missing issue is what are parents to do when they find these things.

    If a parent admits to finding a stash and flushing it, or putting a gun/ammo in the garbage, do they risk prosecution for aiding/abetting or destruction of evidence?

    Is a parent expected to turn their kid in? At that point they'll be subject to criminal prosecution, possibly as an adult, in which case the issue of 4th amendment rights in the house might need some revisiting.

  • l0b0t||

    It depends upon where in Sen. Adam's district one resides. In my neighborhood, we are under the jurisdiction of the 77th precinct and its captain allows residents to keep firearms in their home (with the payment of a non-refundable $380.00 application fee and a yearly fee of $80 per weapon). Two blocks over, in the 71st precinct, their captain does not allow anyone to own firearms.

  • skr||

    wait. what?

  • free2booze||

    "Shall issue" vs "May issue"

  • hmm||

    And they call the fly over states bumpkins...

  • hmm||

    Shakin' the bush boss...

  • ||

    Nice.

  • Binky||

    "Inspect what you expect."

    Careful what you ask for, Senator.

  • Bill Clinton||

    "Inspect what you expect."

    Oh, sure. NOW he tells me.

  • LK||

    So Brendan, do you wait at red lights in the middle of the night in the middle of nowhere wondering if you'll be caught by the omnipresent government if you proceeded ahead?

    I would, but only if my wife were in the car and we had some excellent sex within the last 8 hours.

  • ||

    People like you are why red light cameras were invented.

  • ||

    Gee, an ignorant politician? What a surprise!

    And all the statists tell us that we're fucking doomed if we don't have these assclowns running our lives!

  • Yawn||

    Much ado about nothing.
    Move along now.

  • hmm||

    Fourth amendment, how the fuck does it work?

  • Yawn||

    Cliche. Yawn.

  • hmm||

    le irony

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    My question is can I do a Terry stop of my daughter's boyfriend in my own home and then beat him to death because he was all resisty. If so, my wife can handle the investigation and we'll let the legal system know when she reaches a conclusion.

  • l0b0t||

    This is exactly why I am a PatrioPsychotic AnarchoMaterialist. Every yard a kingdom, every dog and child a serf.

  • cynical||

    "all resisty"? That shit will never fly.

    Try this:
    "He became combative, after which a blunt object repeatedly stuck him."

  • Mensan||

    No, no, no. It should say:
    "He became combative, after which he was repeatedly struck by a blunt."

    The passive voice is critical. It detaches the actual action from any initiation of that action, and further obfuscates who actually performed it.

  • ||

    And don't forget to have a curb installed in your living room.

  • ||

    "resisty"... i like this. i need to use this in a report

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    I agree. "Resisty" is the best neologism since "truthy".

  • Example||

    When presented with facts of reality, libertarians get all resisty.

  • l0b0t||

    Senator Adams also crusaded against saggy pants - http://articles.nydailynews.co.....wn-heights

  • hmm||

    What amendment does that not cover?

  • hmm||

    I think this may be racist. I'm not sure though.

  • LK||

    I like Negroes to be flamboyant, not socially conservative.

  • Fire Tiger||

    Try having a teenager who honestly argues that his calling his mother a Bitch is protected by the First Amendment.

  • ||

    Well, it is. Just protected against you. Or her.

  • LK||

    A teenager calling his mother a "Bitch" is protected by the second law of thermodynamics. You cannot unring a bell or put words back into someone's mouth.

    Deal with it.

  • Robert||

    Let's see what's inside this hollowed-out dictionary...why, it's Jimmy Hoffa's head. And you had no idea.

  • "Meatballs" Marinara||

    You're a funny guy, Robert.

  • Robert||

    Look closely: Was that gun in the jewelry case, or did it come from his sleeve?

  • ||

    i must admit i am happy that this level of idiocy is from a democrat.

    not as bad as the guy who believed an island could sink, but pretty bad

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    To be fair, I think he just thought the island would tip over, not sink. He was unclear on whether the island would right itself.

  • ||

    true. i wouldn't want to misrepresent his idiocy. it has a dignity all its own

  • ||

    Finds ounce of grass in child's back pack

    Look son, I've told you once I've told you a hundred times, the house always gets a cut.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    This politician is a member od Tony's party.

  • Art-P.O.G.||

    Well, no one's done it yet as far as I can tell. "I learned it from watching you!"

  • Ted S.||

    Damn you! That was the first thing I thought, too.

  • Mainer||

    How old is that PSA...70's ?

  • ||

    "What amendment does that cover?"

    The same one that grants Congress the power to mandate the purchase and continual use of a product from governmentally approved exchanges?

  • Big Sis||

    Meh. Telescreens.

  • ||

    Sounds like a plan to me dude. Wow.

    www.anon-web.us.tc

  • Eric Adams||

    Or maybe you might look in your kid's closet - and what do we have here? - a ho. Don't be alarmed. Maybe your kid found the ho while walking home from school. Sit down with your kid and have a discussion about the ho. The ho can be a useful conversation piece. Talk to your kid about the dangers of bringing home hos.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement