Follow the money. Do any of these council members have an interest in lock box sales, stocks, etc? Which businesses are exempted? That is a key piece of information. Are retail stores included? This is pure insanity. Insanity and tyranny are two sides of the same coin.
To protect the (citizens, children, animals, wetlands, trees, earth, snails, birds, environment, etc.) is the beginning of every draconian law on the books.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's protections do not apply when the searched party lacks a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's protections do not apply when the searched party lacks a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Unofficial reference: Wikipedia.
Guess I should check.. but isnt Iowa just announced as the first "Chinese State" in America??
TheNoMoreBS 8 months ago
Follow the money. Do any of these council members have an interest in lock box sales, stocks, etc? Which businesses are exempted? That is a key piece of information. Are retail stores included? This is pure insanity. Insanity and tyranny are two sides of the same coin.
To protect the (citizens, children, animals, wetlands, trees, earth, snails, birds, environment, etc.) is the beginning of every draconian law on the books.
learn54 8 months ago
If they install the lock box, then just change the locks, or add another one.
subaraptor 8 months ago
Clever! Now they're not even going to have to break down any doors when they start rounding us up!
ladybugsingstheblues 8 months ago
Great! Then they shouldn't have a problem making sure that ANY citizen has keys to THEIR OFFICE !! This is unbelievable! Let us know how this goes.
STARFIRESOLAR 8 months ago
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's protections do not apply when the searched party lacks a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
klcollier777 8 months ago
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's protections do not apply when the searched party lacks a "reasonable expectation of privacy". Unofficial reference: Wikipedia.
klcollier777 8 months ago
Hang that fat fucking domestic terrorist
420PATROCK 8 months ago
I'm in Oz but if you know anyone in this area please do forward info asap.
wisevitalogy 8 months ago
This is just amazing!
DinaLarnia 8 months ago