So what do you think? Are there legitimate reasons why honest people don't want to be fingerprinted?
Putting aside all the discussion about this case, the Indiana Code pretty much demands that firearms be returned to the owners IMMEDIENTLY. There is not any provision for fingerprinting or delaying. IMPD has admitted that he is the rightful owner so that should be end of story, period.
......even though trial judges are forbidden from interpreting the law......
(snip)
RULE 2.2: Impartiality and Fairness A judge shall uphold and apply the law,* and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.*
Comment
[1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded.
[2] Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question.
[3] When applying and interpreting the law, a judge sometimes may make good-faith errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do not violate this Rule.
[4] It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.
So?
You need to learn something about the law. It doesn't matter what the law says. The only thing that matters is what a judge says the law is.
Judge Robyn Moberly of Marion County and Judge Jack Tandy of Shelby County both have written opinions, even though trial judges are forbidden from interpreting the law, saying that IC 35-47-3-2(b), the passage of the Indiana Code that requires firearms to be returned, at once, to the rightful owner, is of no effect. Police have a "reasonable time" to return firearms.
In a crime of the most grievous linguistic violence, Moberly said that "a matter of weeks" in returning the firearm is "at once," under the statute.
Let me know if you want to see the opinion. Oh, yeah, the NRA declined to help in that case, too.
Both of these judges make up the law, as they go. Both of these judges are Republicans.
This is government by the government, for the government. The law is just a smokescreen to make the public think the government believes in limits to its power.
Even if a domestic violence accusation that is made turns out to be false, the police still have to thoroughly investigate it and take appropriate action in good faith that the accusation is true. If it is proven that the accusation is false, the firearms that were seized should be returned ASAP to the owner.
It is my opinion that any firearm that is seized for whatever reason should be returned to the owner if the owner is legally allowed to possess those firearms. No him-hawing around, just get it done.
I would research this myself, but I'm not sure where to look to do so. Thus, since you seem aware of that, I'll ask: Smoking, are you aware of any case being brought to the IN Supreme Court to address the judicial overreach of these two jurists?
Blessings,
Bill
I would research this myself, but I'm not sure where to look to do so. Thus, since you seem aware of that, I'll ask: Smoking, are you aware of any case being brought to the IN Supreme Court to address the judicial overreach of these two jurists?
Blessings,
Bill
No, you just throw insults at others and lightly disguise it as disagreement.
Really? I'll then repeat the sentiment of another poster:
I don't necessarily disagree with your beliefs that there is entirely too much corruption and abuse is present in all levels of government. However, the offense you take to such, IMO, clouds your judgment to the point that the you don't believe that anyone within the government actually possesses any power.
You may believe that you may be Libertarian, but the extreme nature in which you push said beliefs, is much closer to anarchy.
Bill,
The statutory procedure of such, is a decision only largely remedied by appeal.
Once an opinion to overturn the lower court's decision is rendered, the opinion becomes a matter invoking the doctrine of stare decisis for all future decisions.
The ruling was a warning, a message. Taking it further would be asking for problems.
The oft-heard admonition "This is Indiana" best be taken to heart. The outcome in Paul's case was unsurprising.
Are you aware of any move to change the policies? Is such a move even possible?
I'm not aware of any public move to change the policies, other than statements made by INGOers that they need to be changed. Decisions about that kind of thing are made by the folks in the ivory tower who really could care less what a patrolman (or the general public) thinks.
OK, hold on a second. Are Moberly and Tandy on the State Court of Appeals? My question addressed overturning a lower court's decision, but if this was a higher court (not the highest in the state, but still, higher than the court of original jurisdiction) then yes, I can see that it would require clarification on the part of the legislature, and in our present political situation, it would not be good time to address a change like that.
Smoking, I can understand your quote of that admonition. Partially, it makes sense. I don't completely agree, because it's by challenging such overreaches that we move law in the direction of freedom, (which of course, means to make it as minimally restrictive as possible... de minimis, if I use the term correctly.)
Unfortunately, that admonition does not seem to apply to those who would change the law in the opposite direction.
Blessings,
Bill
You can't challenge it, Bill. That's the point. You're in Indiana. The Tandy case was brought to the Court of Appeals which flatly refused to hear it. Just refused to hear it. The End. The statute is clear, and the policy is in direct contravention to the statute. The Appellate Court didn't want to overturn every police department policy in the State, so they killed the case. It's really quite scary.
Now, if you go make a stink about what they're doing and put them on the spot in an official sense, you're going to find out, real quick, how much they can hurt you.
We should tell strangers: "You in Indiana, now, Boy."
Is there any way to post documents to this site?
Do you have the cause number of the case that was appealed and never heard?
http://s147594595.onlinehome.us/Images/AmendedComplaint.pdf
http://s147594595.onlinehome.us/Images/Exhibit1.pdf
http://s147594595.onlinehome.us/Images/MotiontoDismiss.pdf
http://s147594595.onlinehome.us/Images/ResponsetoDismiss.pdf
http://s147594595.onlinehome.us/Images/OrderofDismissal.pdf
There were subsequent proceedings in Shelby County under the same parties.
No...one can spell. The other cannot.
Sadly, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.Both of these judges make up the law, as they go. Both of these judges are Republicans.