Firearm Seizures

[IndyDave1776]

Thank God or I might be in trouble

My guess is that when being strange becomes illegal we will find that everyone not inclined toward being a good .gov koolaid-drinking sheep will be categorized as 'strange'.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I don't like Koolaid, I like my Coca colas

 

[eatsnopaste]

MIGHT BE?

Thank God or I might be in trouble

 

[level0]

Let's see...
5. Claims regarding spirits? Not too far of a stretch to implicate most anyone who is not an avowed atheist materialist. 'Religiously preoccupied'? Last time I checked, that was a constitutional right.
6. Claims of knowing things to happen beforehand and a 'break with reality? Quick, arrest and disarm the psychic network!

+1 on your entire post, and calling out (5) and (6) for special bonus mention: There are entire television shows on respected, national networks that air during normal viewing hours that deal with religion (multiple dedicated religious channels in multiple languages and denominations available on about any cable provider), ghosts (SyFy channel, History channel), ghost hunting (Syfy, History, Discovery), bigfoot hunting (Syfy, Discovery I think), UFO sightings (all of the previously mentioned). The multi-billion-dollar-annually movie industry constantly puts out movies about religion, ghosts, space aliens, monsters, supernatural powers, witches, and the like.

I'm not saying I believe any of that stuff, but all those shows and channels and movies rake in money for a reason and have bajillions of fans for a reason.

 

[bingley]

Let's see...

You're looking at the best case scenario given the descriptions of the newspaper article -- someone who is just a little strange. The same descriptions can also apply to someone who is a powder keg ready to blow. The news story isn't a case file, and we just don't have the data to form an opinion about whether the guy is really crazy.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Until and unless someone commits a crime, he has not committed a crime. I feel that this cannot be stressed enough. Weird? Sure. Plenty of weird people in this world. If being 'weird' is criterion sufficient to deprive someone of their innate right to self-defense, then lock up the millions of people in this country who are 'weird' and take those weapons away. I'm sure the Control Crowd would salivate at the mere suggestion.

Get 'em, Guy.

 

[elemonator]

Seizure applies to all of your property, especially money. They're real fond of stealing peoples money and keeping it. Hope you succeed, Guy. We need more success in this area.

+1!!

 

[elemonator]

Until and unless someone commits a crime, he has not committed a crime. I feel that this cannot be stressed enough. Weird? Sure. Plenty of weird people in this world. If being 'weird' is criterion sufficient to deprive someone of their innate right to self-defense, then lock up the millions of people in this country who are 'weird' and take those weapons away. I'm sure the Control Crowd would salivate at the mere suggestion.

Get 'em, Guy.

you're only weird if you're not rich...if you rich,then you're eccentric.

 

[drillsgt]

Why is it always assumed that even if someone is a little off balance and owns guns the natural progression is to become a mass murderer?

 

[philo]

For the sake of arguement, let's say removing the guy's guns is justified. Is there no provision in the law the compensates the person for his property? Alternatively, can the court direct the property be turned over to a responsible party, maybe of the owner's choosing? If not, it seems to me this is an area of the law that should also be addressed.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. As I recall, this gentleman had thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of dollars worth of guns in his collection, and to date there's been no compensation or arrangement to transfer to another (friend, family, buyer, etc.).

 

[bwframe]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. As I recall, this gentleman had thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of dollars worth of guns in his collection, and to date there's been no compensation or arrangement to transfer to another (friend, family, buyer, etc.).

Yep, the financial/theft issue is totally separate from the bat crazy argument.

 

[cosermann]

I think we should revoke the voter registration of people below a certain minimum IQ. They're a danger to us all at the ballot box.

 

[eric001]

I see only 2 possible legitimate ways the guy in question could have his rights to his firearms removed. One, that he be CONVICTED of a crime sufficiently heinous in nature to cause the court to remove his weapons from him as part of the consequences for that crime. Two, that he be deemed dangerous to himself and/or others based on qualified professional psychological analysis, and thus his weapons be removed from his possession to mitigate that danger.

According to this article and other articles published at the time of his three day mental evaluation, neither of these reasons was in any way substantiated. He was NOT convicted of ANY crime due in large part to there being absolutely no evidence of his ever having committed crimes for which he would have to forfeit his 2nd Amendment rights. Nor was he deemed psychologically to be a real danger to himself or others.

I know full well that logic does not necessarily apply to legal decisions, but I fail to see where the courts would have any real way of defending their actions. After all, aren't judges also sworn to uphold the Constitutions of the state and the country? Isn't it their duty to make decisions based on Constitutional guarantees? The world in which a court can arbitrarily deny and remove an individual's Constitutional rights based solely on the judge's desire to do so is NOT a world foreseen by nor fought for by our Founding Fathers.

[end of rant, carry on]

 

[IndyDave1776]

You're looking at the best case scenario given the descriptions of the newspaper article -- someone who is just a little strange. The same descriptions can also apply to someone who is a powder keg ready to blow. The news story isn't a case file, and we just don't have the data to form an opinion about whether the guy is really crazy.

Exactly. The burden is for the .gov to prove he is dangerous, not simply suggest that it is within the realm of possibility. Yes, the man could be batsh*t crazy. I could be a Bolshevik (but I'm not). In any event, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt of wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt and under the Fifth Amendment restitution for property which is taken from him.

 

[2A_Tom]

Good luck Guy. I trust your judgement in this case. No matter what others may say.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Of note, "Judge" Bradford (and I quote the title because such a person is supposed to be impartial) was the one who, in May of 2005, in a divorce proceeding, stipulated that the man and his ex-wife could not teach their child about the religion they practiced. He made this part of the divorce decree over the objection of both parents, because the religion practiced was "non-mainstream". In looking up these details, I found that apparently, the IN Court of Appeals slapped his hand over this ruling and reversed it, but the fact remains that as a judge, he had no business making the ruling in the first place. "Judge" Bradford is clearly a believer in the State ruling the people, rather than serving them, and I am of the opinion that he should never have been appointed to any position of power and/or authority in the first place. When the question comes up on the ballot for his retention as a judge, I always vote to remove him. Sadly, the majority, most of whom are likely unaware of rulings like this, do not join me in that vote.
I realize he did not author this opinion, but I give this information to show why I think he should not be able to even concur in it.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Destro]

Did you know that you can have your firearms seized - with no compensation whatsoever - even if you've never committed a crime, threatened anyone, or been determined to be "mentally ill"?

I'm trying to change that.

Guy

Man who alarmed police near Lauren Spierer site appeals gun seizure | The Indiana Lawyer

SPAM!

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

This story seems to me to be one of no malice by the LE officers - initially.

A person, acting strange and discussing a missing person, may indeed be acting in a manner to arouse suspicion and concern by those charged with protecting the peace and investigating crime.

The suspicious person was taken into custody, and upon further investigation was found to have firearms which may not be legal IF he is found to be of unsound mind. Thus, the firearms are seized. Again, no problem so far.

However, when the person is deemed to be legally safe to themselves and others all property should be immediately returned to the person. This is where the Nanny State is beginning to rear her very ugly head.

I do not mind LE acting within the scope of their duty to be suspicious of unusual behavior and/or activity. Acting within their limits under the Constitution based upon probable cause to seize a person or their property is fine. Where things go awry is when the person has been investigated AND no proof of criminal activity is found the system begins to overstep its bounds by not returning the property of the "former" suspicious person.

There is a very blurry line between "normal" to "weird" to "strange" to "eccentric" to "mentally unstable." There is no easy way to observe someone and determine with certainty where a person may fall. Even with modern psychiatry trying very hard to organize symptoms and behaviors into classifications it isn't done with mathematical precision. This is where we must err on the side of the individuals civil liberties being protected and preserved, else we all may fall into some category beyond "normal."

Regards,

Doug

 

[Denny347]

To All,

This story seems to me to be one of no malice by the LE officers - initially.

A person, acting strange and discussing a missing person, may indeed be acting in a manner to arouse suspicion and concern by those charged with protecting the peace and investigating crime.

The suspicious person was taken into custody, and upon further investigation was found to have firearms which may not be legal IF he is found to be of unsound mind. Thus, the firearms are seized. Again, no problem so far.

However, when the person is deemed to be legally safe to themselves and others all property should be immediately returned to the person. This is where the Nanny State is beginning to rear her very ugly head.

I do not mind LE acting within the scope of their duty to be suspicious of unusual behavior and/or activity. Acting within their limits under the Constitution based upon probable cause to seize a person or their property is fine. Where things go awry is when the person has been investigated AND no proof of criminal activity is found the system begins to overstep its bounds by not returning the property of the "former" suspicious person.

There is a very blurry line between "normal" to "weird" to "strange" to "eccentric" to "mentally unstable." There is no easy way to observe someone and determine with certainty where a person may fall. Even with modern psychiatry trying very hard to organize symptoms and behaviors into classifications it isn't done with mathematical precision. This is where we must err on the side of the individuals civil liberties being protected and preserved, else we all may fall into some category beyond "normal."

Regards,

Doug

Remember, it's the judge that decides if the person gets the guns back in a hearing...not the police.

 

[Bill of Rights]

As I read it, the guy was busted for acting suspiciously, never charged with any crime, and was released shortly thereafter. If he was released, we can presume there was no reason to consider him dangerous. Why, then, would his property that was seized not be returned at the time he was freed from custody? Leaving aside the issue that if he was in custody, his property was not a danger to anyone any more than before his arrest, how is this not analogous to the man who places his pistol on the seat of his car, then exits the car, locking the door as he does so at a traffic stop? The man is removed from the presence of the gun, and therefore is not an imminent threat to "officer safety", thus, IIRC, the gun cannot be seized nor the car entered solely on the basis of the presence of the gun there.

Remember, it's the judge that decides if the person gets the guns back in a hearing...not the police.

That's completely true, Denny, but if the guns are never seized in the first place, or at a minimum are returned when the man is freed from custody, he would not have to expend time or money to re-obtain property that he already owns. This is not an indictment of the PD, but rather of the system that seems in recent years more intent on the obtaining of other people's stuff and repurposing it; I saw the back of a Cadillac SUV a few days ago, marked with police markings, and on the back window was a statement something like, "This used to be a drug dealer's car; now it's OURS!" Considering the Canadian case of Mr. Bruce Montaigue (I think that was the right spelling) we can see how such things have an enormous potential for abuse if those administering the program forget that their job is to serve, not to victimize the public.

Again, to be clear, I don't fault the line officer for seizing property; If a man is arrested due to the apparent facts pointing to a likelihood of a crime about to be committed, no one expects the arresting officer to leave all of the man's property at the place of arrest and just take him; that would be irresponsible as well, but, as I said before, if he is freed, his stuff needs to be freed, too.

Blessings,
Bill