Are there legitimate reasons not to be fingerprinted?

[Kirk Freeman]

It is this hemming and hawing that some of us object to.

This hemming and hawing is not permitted by law.

 

[smoking357]

So what do you think? Are there legitimate reasons why honest people don't want to be fingerprinted?

From the "if you have nothing to hide..." wing. This country has flat forgot what freedom is about.

 

[smoking357]

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.

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.

 

[JBusch8899]

......even though trial judges are forbidden from interpreting the law......

I'd appreciate the citation to the above statement you made and presented as fact.

From the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct:

(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.

EDIT: Further reading upon the subject

Statutory interpretation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

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

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

Sure, you have to make sure that no one's really being hurt. (We won't get into mandatory arrest laws that say such things as "any mark on the accuser means the accused goes downtown" or the like. I don't know what Indiana's law is on that and I'm not looking it up at present)

A clearer answer to my question I could not have received. Thanks for your thoughts. Are you aware of any move to change the policies? Is such a move even possible?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[JBusch8899]

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

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.

 

[smoking357]

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

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.

 

[E5RANGER375]

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.

i get insulted too, its fine. i do believe the govt. should have power, but only the power granted by the constitution. they dont even have the legal authority to collect income taxes, but they do it anyways, and if you dont pay or have enough money to legaly fight them then they will take all you have. and even if you win in court against the govt, it still doesnt mean you will ever get your seized property back. they are the govt, they do what they want, who will stop them right? governments job is to militarily protect us, and also be diplomatic with other countries. much beyond that i believe its the states that are sovereign to make laws, and the peoples right to choose what those laws are.
and for the record. i am NOT a libertarian. i havent even researched their parties values. I do not claim any political party, although i have traditionaly voted republican, but i WILL NOT claim myself to be a republican. I am an American.

now i openly appologize for "bashing" in this thread.

back to the thread: the more and more data that is forcefuly collected from us in the name of protecting us, then the less individualism we have, and thus less freedom. if you have a deer that lives in your 10 acres of woods, he is free and wild right. well if you cut down 5 acres of your woods then technically speaking, that deer is still wild and free yes. but lesss so because you have restricted his movements to only 5 acres so he is easier to see now. thats what the governments goal is for us my friends. they want to know everything you buy, sell, eat, ect. The govt in a 10 minute search can find out: what cothes you buy, what you eat, where you live, what hotels you like, how much you make, how much you spend, where you travel, how often you travel, where you buy gas and how much and what kind, what you drive, where you cut your hair, what kind of haircut you get, who cut your hair, how much you tip at a restaurant, if you drink, if you smoke, what brands, what health issues you have, what medicines you take, how often, what diseases you have, what guns you have, what ammo you have, who you have called, who called you, how long you talk, what you talk about, what radio station, TV stations you listen to and watch, what movies you rent, how much electricity or gas you use, what you look like, who your related to and what gender and race you are, who you vote for, etc. I coulld go on and on. so i ask you: ARE WE FREE?????? the answer is simply, NO. we have a false sense of freedom that has been created for us. everytime you leave an electronic signature of info, you add to your profile, and lose one more piece of anonimity. now if they get your fingerprints or even DNA, they can tell what guns you checked out at a gun show, so that means you were there and you must have guns. do you want that??

the more they know about you then the smaller your world and opportunities at freedom get. The govt knows that the people are aware of their right to abolish the govt nd form a new one. and it still scares them because right now we still have the ability to do it. but if you start taking away our rights to privacy and take, take, take, then eventualy we lose the ability to gather privately and plan etc, if it ever came to that. so they have peacefully but still un-constitutionaly, won the battle before it even started without firing a shot or so they think. we need to stop looking at these oppressions (fingerprinting, national ID cards, micro chips, social security cards, tracable bank accounts, etc) as individual things. we MUST look at them in the BIG PICTURE. combined you can clearly see the governments goal is to "manage" us, into what they want a free people to do and how to act, and what to believe, etc. many people are falling for it. all these things will be discuised in the form of "we just want to protect you", but in reality who will protet us against them once we give them all of our rights to privacy? you anonymity is an esential right and distict factor of being an American. If we lose it then we will no longer be free, but we will become pupets in a big play. The federal govt in my opinion, doesnt even have the right to know your name. the state govt is more sovereign than the federal govt. we need to start looking at the states as being the authority instead of the feds, because until we get back to that way (the way it was intended) then we will never know true freedom.

anytime someone figures out their plan or states the truth (which isnt hard to do), then they just discredit them by calling them a kook, or a tin foil hatter, etc. because if a BIG govt or BIG news organization says something then it HAS TO BE TRUE RIGHT??? HELL NO!! wake up people. anytime you see the govt getting away with spewing lies about what realy happened and the media allows it (waco, ruby ridge, 9/11, etc) then you better be real scared, because it doesnt get worse than that. the biggest tradgedies and evil plots of history were perpetrated in PLAIN SIGHT!!! for some reason people think that if it sounds too obvious, or too devious, or evil, then it must not be true. wake up fools.

 

[Bill of Rights]

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.

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

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

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.

 

[E5RANGER375]

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.

well id say that is about as honest and straitforward answer as it gets that deserves applause! hes right, they dont care what we THE PEOPLE think. and anytime you have the govt not care what the people think then you know its time to change things. remember, WE THE PEOPLE are in charge. WE are the masters. or are supposed to be. Thanks Frank for the honesty

 

[smoking357]

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?

 

[Eddie]

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?

 

[smoking357]

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.

 

[Eddie]

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.

I meant the one from the appeal. I wanted to see what their stated reason for not ruling on it was.

 

[Vince49]

No...one can spell. The other cannot.

 

[E5RANGER375]

i agree vince that was pretty funny and true

 

[JBusch8899]

If the appeal was denied, the only other course of action is through the legislature.

 

[Delmar]

Both of these judges make up the law, as they go. Both of these judges are Republicans.

Sadly, that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.