The Original CZ Forum
GENERAL => Right to Keep and Bear Arms => Topic started by: wdbutcher on March 18, 2018, 11:24:54 PM
-
This 76 year old former policeman with no criminal record has his guns seized by the police. He wasn?t being charged, or investigated, or even accused of any crime.
http://wapo.st/2Iyo3BQ?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.86c33261f0b7
-
What a sad story, poor guy. He got them back, but I wonder how much damage was done during confiscation and storage? Very disturbing to see other states follow Commiefornia's lead.
-
Thanks for posting that.
I'm glad I read the entire story.
Not that it had a "happy" ending, but not at all what I expected.
It actually restores a small glimmer of hope in our "system" - as warped as it's appeared to have become.
-
Yes one must be careful what comes out of your mouth today lest you be branded a criminal while they coddle and care for those who would truly do us harm.
All I have to say is shall not be infringed means exactly that. PERIOD!
-
Thanks for posting that.
I'm glad I read the entire story.
Not that it had a "happy" ending, but not at all what I expected.
It actually restores a small glimmer of hope in our "system" - as warped as it's appeared to have become.
This man was lucky he had a good Lawyer and an understanding Judge. This could have easily went the other way. What if he couldn't have afforded a Lawyer? I'm guessing his guns would be gone forever without a dime to show for it.
-
What a sad story, poor guy. He got them back, but I wonder how much damage was done during confiscation and storage? Very disturbing to see other states follow Commiefornia's lead.
Actually, Connecticut is in the lead on this sort of thing, having enacted the law in 1999. California didn't get around to it until 2016.
-
Thanks for posting that.
I'm glad I read the entire story.
Not that it had a "happy" ending, but not at all what I expected.
It actually restores a small glimmer of hope in our "system" - as warped as it's appeared to have become.
This man was lucky he had a good Lawyer and an understanding Judge. This could have easily went the other way. What if he couldn't have afforded a Lawyer? I'm guessing his guns would be gone forever without a dime to show for it.
This was my thought as well. If something like this happened to me today, I wouldn't be able to swing the lawyer fees to fight it tooth and nail.
-
Did they take away his matches too??
-
Did they take away his matches too??
Nope. Nor his car or house or knives or any other item he could harm himself or others with. We all know the truth. These laws aren't about protecting anyone. They are only about confiscating guns and even though this man got his back we can be sure they collect plenty that don't get returned for whatever reason. We can also be sure some people just don't have the means or the money to fight the system and that's exactly what the system wants.
-
Good story, but the ending could have been quite different.
Florida has had a law called 'The Baker Act' since 1971 that allows LE to take persons that 'they' deem might be a 'threat to themselves or others' into custody for psychological evaluation and their firearms seized. Although the 'evaluation period' is supposed to be limited to 72 hours; the clock can get reset as they move persons from one facility to another, or are deemed to require further evaluation. Especially those persons that have good insurance coverage. The stories abound of 'miraculous recoveries' when insurance runs out.
The recent Parkland FL school shootings prompted FL legislators to include The Baker Act in new 'gun control' laws enacted under SB 7026.
It was originally conceived in 1971 to help protect the mentally ill. However, it has evolved more and more into a tool of LE.
I'm not saying that there aren't situations where 'Baker Acting' someone is beneficial.
My concern is the lack of due process in Florida's Baker Act. Custody and seizure of property can be exercised on hearsay; and continued custody and seizure is determined by a shrink, not a Judge or Jury of Peers. It's a slippery slope.
As the OP suggests; until there's some legal due process safeguards to prevent good lawful people being run through the wringer; one must be extremely careful about statements, or how one responds to health questions. Especially if you're grieving or struggling with a serious illness.........or have a spiteful neighbor.
The effect of making 'bump stocks' illegal or having long guns follow the same age limits or procedures as handguns, pales in comparison to the potential effect of expansion of 'The Baker Act'.
-
He did have Chuck Norris for a lawyer, so...
-
He did have Chuck Norris for a lawyer, so...
I was just about to comment on that. He'll be fine.