Police refuse to return guns to lawful citizens

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

The only caveat I would add is that according to the linked article, the police are apparently acting according to a Department of Justice document that requires people reclaiming seized firearms to provide proof of ownership. So, it isn't clear that the police have a choice in this matter; do they get to pick and choose what laws/regulations they want to follow, and disregard the others? It may be that the real problem is with the Department of Justice.

Which was precisely my point, but people who didn't actually read the article or tend to gloss over that simply don't want to be questioned about it.

The document published by the CA DOJ has no force of law and in fact is in conflict with property ownership laws in the state.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Am I free to question his methodology?

Sure! So far, you're just another critic who isn't offering anything specific to the contrary, which makes your criticism meaningless. So tell us what YOU think the proper poll questions should have been. Offer up something specific that you think has better methodology. Beware: Someone might criticize you! Do you dare?

By the way, you never answered my earlier question: Did you vote "keep the guns"?

[firemedic 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are, in fact, times when it's going to be perfectly acceptable to confiscate devices associated with criminal behavior even if no criminal charges are brought.

Not unless you take liberties with the 4th Amendment. Your history shows a loose attitude toward constitutional rights, but that doesn't mean we all have to.

There is no criminal behavior present if no charges are brought and convictions achieved.

If you attempt to board an aircraft with a gun you accidentally left in your briefcase, are TSA agents allowed to confiscate it or are they compelled to allow you to carry it on-board? After all, no criminal activity took place.

Or...are they compelled to cart you off to jail?

Is there no middle ground?

Actually, there is no middle ground, because it is a violation of law to attempt to carry a firearm on board a commercial flight.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-05-07/justice/justice_maryland-plane-gun_1_tsa-gun-weapons?_s=PM:JUSTICE

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If you attempt to board an aircraft with a gun you accidentally left in your briefcase, are TSA agents allowed to confiscate it or are they compelled to allow you to carry it on-board? After all, no criminal activity took place.

Taking a gun on a commercial airliner is a crime, whether it's by accident or not. Therefore, they would be justified in keeping the gun and charging you with a crime. So your analogy fails.

Try again.

If they discovered a gun on the person of a U.S. Air Marshal or a pilot certified to have a gun in the cockpit, and confiscated the gun, then that would be wrong because they are authorized to carry their gun on board. If a TSA agent made an identity mistake in such a case and confiscated their gun, would you advocate that the pilot or Marshal doesn't deserve to have their gun back because they can't produce a sales receipt?

You're digging yourself into a hole here with your arguments, and you ought to just stop and cut your losses. But hey, it's always entertaining to see revealed just how far some gun-o-phobes will go to attack gun rights.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If you attempt to board an aircraft with a gun you accidentally left in your briefcase, are TSA agents allowed to confiscate it or are they compelled to allow you to carry it on-board? After all, no criminal activity took place.

This is a strange counter example as there is a clear violation taking place. The intent may not be present, but the violation is. I believe in most case these are pleaded down to a minor offense, but there is still a guilty plea.

[quade 4]

Ok, cops respond to the scene of a gang shooting. They round up ten members of the gang, all of them have guns, three of them have no prior convictions. Eventually, the cops figure out who pulled the trigger in the murder.

Should the cops be compelled to return all of the guns?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Ok, cops respond to the scene of a gang shooting. They round up ten members of the gang, all of them have guns, three of them have no prior convictions. Eventually, the cops figure out who pulled the trigger in the murder.

Should the cops be compelled to return all of the guns?

uh, you left out some details here in this silly dodge.

what do you mean by round them up? How did they identify them as members of the gang, where did they pick them up? If they're outside and have guns, do they have CCWs (of course not, obvious offense unless the cops lacked PC to search them). If they picked them up at their residence, how did they come across the guns...unlikely they would have search order to find guns in the home. Prior (felony) convictions already make gun ownership illegal, of course.

In short, you're shoveling out a steaming pile here that has nothing to do with your disdain for legal gun owners or John's topic question.

[quade 4]

Quote

. . . with your disdain for legal gun owners or John's topic question.

You presume too much.

I am FOR legal gun ownership and especially self defense in the home. I've stated so in the past.

That said, I don't think that means guns for everyone, everywhere and under every circumstance.

It saddens me that some people can't see a middle ground.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Ok, cops respond to the scene of a gang shooting. They round up ten members of the gang, all of them have guns, three of them have no prior convictions. Eventually, the cops figure out who pulled the trigger in the murder. Should the cops be compelled to return all of the guns?

For those with no gun ownership disqualifications, who were carrying their guns legally, and who had nothing to do with the shooting, the cops should have to return their guns.

The cops don't get to confiscate property and keep it for no reason just because they don't like someone's skin color, tattoos or clothing, or because they were in proximity to a crime committed by someone else.

The only time police get to confiscate stuff and keep it for no reason is when they work for a police state. Is that what you want?

Quit digging!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

. . . with your disdain for legal gun owners or John's topic question.

You presume too much.

Hardly at all. One only needs to look at your fantastic (as in 100% fantasy) writing you do on topics like cops v gun owners to see. Most liberal identifiers believe in 9 of the 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights, but you toss aside so many more than if it weren't for your gun stance, you'd be like a John Bircher.

[quade 4]

Oh please . . . be more melodramatic.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

btw, will you fix the vast problems with your hypothetical, or just withdrawing the question?

[billvon 3,116]

>They round up ten members of the gang, all of them have guns, three of
>them have no prior convictions. Eventually, the cops figure out who pulled
>the trigger in the murder.

If they owned them legally, had not committed any crimes with them and had them in their homes - yes, the cops should return the guns once they determine what's going on.

Now let's change your scenario. One of those gang members recently left the gang (although the cops believe no one ever really leaves it.) She broke up with her gang boyfriend and is living with her five year old son in an apartment. Her boyfriend told her he would kill her if he ever saw her again, and told her he's taking her son if he gets the chance.

Should the cops take her gun away?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You presume too much.
I am FOR legal gun ownership and especially self defense in the home. I've stated so in the past.
That said, I don't think that means guns for everyone, everywhere and under every circumstance.
It saddens me that some people can't see a middle ground.

How ironic! Hardly anyone is saying "guns for everyone, everywhere and under every circumstance". Therefore it is YOU who is presuming too much, and producing the irony here. You're worrying about a molehill, that looks like a mountain only to you.

In any field of thought there are always going to be extremists at both ends of the sprectrum. But those folks are usually so small in number that they have no effect on anything, and aren't worth worrying about.

[quade 4]

Quote

>They round up ten members of the gang, all of them have guns, three of
>them have no prior convictions. Eventually, the cops figure out who pulled
>the trigger in the murder.

If they owned them legally, had not committed any crimes with them and had them in their homes - yes, the cops should return the guns once they determine what's going on.

Now let's change your scenario. One of those gang members recently left the gang (although the cops believe no one ever really leaves it.) She broke up with her gang boyfriend and is living with her five year old son in an apartment. Her boyfriend told her he would kill her if he ever saw her again, and told her he's taking her son if he gets the chance.

Should the cops take her gun away?

So then, you agree with me and every case probably needs to be taken individually and blanket black and white statements probably don't work in real life.

Thank you.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

You presume too much.
I am FOR legal gun ownership and especially self defense in the home. I've stated so in the past.
That said, I don't think that means guns for everyone, everywhere and under every circumstance.
It saddens me that some people can't see a middle ground.

How ironic! Hardly anyone is saying "guns for everyone, everywhere and under every circumstance".

"Hardly."

Yet that subset of people is easily found on this forum.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,116]

>So then, you agree with me and every case probably needs to be taken
>individually

Definitely.

>and blanket black and white statements probably don't work in real life.

Agreed. Although you seem to be making a lot of them in this thread.

[quade 4]

Quote

>and blanket black and white statements probably don't work in real life.

Agreed. Although you seem to be making a lot of them in this thread.

Oh? Can you give me an example?

I guess I did say it's a fact that life is made up of shades of grey and not black and white. Yeah, you might have me there.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>and blanket black and white statements probably don't work in real life.

Agreed. Although you seem to be making a lot of them in this thread.

score!

so you won't be updating us on this gangster scenario, I see.

[billvon 3,116]

>Can you give me an example?

One example - "Simply having possession of something doesn't mean it's yours." Not that black and white. Often simple possession _does_ mean it's yours.

[quade 4]

Quote

>Can you give me an example?

One example - "Simply having possession of something doesn't mean it's yours." Not that black and white. Often simple possession _does_ mean it's yours.

Yes . . . I said the first, not the second.

So, your statement about me having made "a lot" of black and white statements in this thread still seems to not hold a lot of water here.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bellyflier 0]

My experience has shown me that cops can take anything they want, when they want.

I pulled up to a check point one day on my way home from work and had my weapon laying in the passenger seat, holstered. The cop took my firearm and my CWP back to his car to run the numbers. He then came back to the car only with my CWP and told me I would have to contact the county to get my firearm back. I contacted the county and they refused to give back my firearm and said oh well, get a lawyer. I contacted several lawyers and their fee for getting my firearm back was higher than the gun itself. It was a 450$ glock 23. They told me my firearm was scheduled for distruction, lol yeah right.

Having a CWP doesnt mean anything.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

My experience has shown me that cops can take anything they want, when they want.

There you have it folks.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda is not real life.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

My experience has shown me that cops can take anything they want, when they want.

There you have it folks.
Shoulda, coulda, woulda is not real life.

We weren't discussing only what real life is, but also what real life SHOULD BE. If real life isn't the same as what it should be, then we need to move towards changing real life for the better. And that's what this thread is all about.

[kallend 2,148]

Signed into law by CLINTON in May 2000, the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act prohibits the government from confiscating property unless it can show "by a preponderance of the evidence" that the property is substantially connected to the crime.

From 1970 until 2000, the govt. could forfeit cars, planes, etc. with almost total impunity.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.