Supreme Court Grants Cert. on Gun Case

[Kirk Freeman]

I try not to go all law geek on INGO but the The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Henderson v. United States which should be of interest to INGO.

Henderson was a Border Patrol agent who was arrested and turned over 15 guns to the FBI. After his conviction Henderson sold the guns and asked the FBI to release them to the new owner.

FBI refused saying that Henderson is a prohibited person and thus has unclean hands to receive the proceeds of the firearms. It is obvious that FBI wants a shortcut to forfeiture but we'll see if this approach is allowed.

Court weighs gun rights of felons | TheHill

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I hope Henderson wins.

 

[Henry]

I must have an old copy of the Constitution of the united States. The one I have states "shall not be infringed" very clearly.

 

[Waveraider]

I thought it was illigal for a felon to own a gun?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I must have an old copy of the Constitution of the united States. The one I have states "shall not be infringed" very clearly.

Yes and so?

He was convicted and thus a prohibited person. The question presented is whether he retains a property right, the INGO-despised right to income no less, in the firearms.

I thought it was illigal for a felon to own a gun?

It is, that is why the defendant sold them to another party.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes and so?

He was convicted and thus a prohibited person. The question presented is whether he retains a property right, the INGO-despised right to income no less, in the firearms.



It is, that is why the defendant sold them to another party.

Just my personal angle on the way I think things ought to be-- Assuming it is Constitutional to force somebody to give up their guns because they're a felon, assuming the guns weren't used in the commission of the felony, etc, it seems to me, the person ought to be able to retrieve the market value of the property while coming into compliance.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Just my personal angle on the way I think things ought to be-- Assuming it is Constitutional to force somebody to give up their guns because they're a felon, assuming the guns weren't used in the commission of the felony, etc, it seems to me, the person ought to be able to retrieve the market value of the property while coming into compliance.

So, you think you have the right to income of your property or the right to transfer to make money from your property? You will draw the wrath of the INGO Liberty Regulators!

INGO Liberty Regulators advising others that they do not have the right to income or the right to transfer their property:

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Nothing makes me shiver in my boots more than internet wrath...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Nothing makes me shiver in my boots more than internet wrath.

They will turn you over to Detective Win Bear!

Property rights are soooo very important to them, as long as you do not exercise them.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

They will turn you over to Detective Win Bear!

Property rights are soooo very important to them, as long as you do not exercise them.

I had to google Detective Win Bear. I should have known.

 

[Alamo]

The linked article indicates that the "unclean hands" idea comes from United States v. Howell. Do you (Kirk Freeman, Esq.) have any law geek insight to this, or do I have to do my own homework?

I dunno what Howell is about, but I could understand that if you robbed a store and shot the clerk, six bystanders, and a police officer, and plead guilty, it might offend the sense of justice to let you sell the gun used and receive that particular income, but Henderson does seem a bit different. Not that I have much sympathy for Henderson.

 

[BogWalker]

I must not spend enough time on INGO. What is the thread in relation to property rights that is currently being lampooned?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The linked article indicates that the "unclean hands" idea comes from United States v. Howell. Do you (Kirk Freeman, Esq.) have any law geek insight to this, or do I have to do my own homework?

Sure thing. This is Howell where the 11th Cir. in 2005 held that a convicted felon has unclean hands (concept from equity law) and thus his rights to income in the firearms was terminated.

https://casetext.com/case/us-v-howell-20

Clean hands in equity (law cannot be used as a weapon by one that is a dirty bird): Clean hands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What is the thread in relation to property rights that is currently being lampooned?

INGOtarians do not believe in the right of income in property rights. It will be interesting to see how the INGOtarians come out on this as they do not believe in the whole bundle of sticks that are property rights.

We have had involved discussions as to the right of income.

 

[Alamo]

Vielen gracias and muchas Dank!

 

[hopper68]

If he had sold the guns pre-conviction the would the FBI have turned the guns over to the new owner or would they still have held them? And what would Indiana policy be assuming the guns were not related to the crime?

 

[Henry]

So, you think you have the right to income of your property or the right to transfer to make money from your property? You will draw the wrath of the INGO Liberty Regulators!

INGO Liberty Regulators advising others that they do not have the right to income or the right to transfer their property:

What in the hell are you talking about?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If he had sold the guns pre-conviction the would the FBI have turned the guns over to the new owner or would they still have held them? And what would Indiana policy be assuming the guns were not related to the crime?

Excellent question, hop. No way to know that from what is given.

What in the hell are you talking about?

INGOtarians do not believe in the right to income from property and the right to transfer property. We have had interesting discussions in the past.

I wonder how this disbelief in these two vital sticks in the property rights bundle will characterize the correct INGOtarian view of this case.

 

[poptab]

What in the hell are you talking about?

Don't feed the trolls

 

[Bill of Rights]

I thought it was illigal for a felon to own a gun?

...It is, that is why the defendant sold them to another party.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, Kirk, but I thought it was only unlawful for him to *possess* a gun, which law would be silent on his being the owner of the property, but state clearly that he may never touch that which he owns.

Example: "Mike" purchases two rifles for his two sons at the time of their births. Subsequently, let's say at a point when his sons are 3 and 5, Mike runs afoul of some obscure law regarding his livestock escaping through a hole in a fence, and thus becomes a "felon".
Prior to turning himself in for prosecution, Mike hands the two rifles to his friend "Frank" to keep in Frank's safe for his boys, when they become adults.

Mike is still the lawful owner. Mike has no access to Frank's safe. Frank is in lawful possession of the rifles and no money changed hands (which may or may not be relevant.) The boys cannot take ownership of the guns for several years yet.

Question: Can Frank, in 13 and 15 years, respectively, transfer the two firearms to Mike's boys, presuming they are not living in Mike's house? (This of course presumes that Mike has not had his conviction overturned and regained "proper person" status.)

Corollary: If Mike can still be the lawful owner, not in possession of his forbidden property, and thus, his wishes may be carried out, what is the difference between that transfer and the one described upthread, other than the timing of it? (If Henderson had sold the guns prior to his conviction, would the FBI have had any argument at all, other than, "but we want them, and we want to bugger him in the process!"?)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dieselrealtor]

Sounds like this is more about the Feds trying to seize private property than the law. (based on my broad knowledge of the situation based solely upon information in this thread)

Forgive my ignorance here but I seem to remember some chatter about Waco being a test balloon for seizing assets of a religious organization.