I saw somewhere that a sheriff and DA were questioning if they could legally seize firearms since it's a civil order and not criminal.
I saw somewhere that a sheriff and DA were questioning if they could legally seize firearms since it's a civil order and not criminal.
That was in the article sourcing from "Fremont County" which is hilarious. They've been in the news left and right for all sorts of corruption in the last year or two. The one deputy with all the murder evidence in his shed, and IIRC like two other pretty serious deputy-corruption issues. Pretty sure the S.O. had to resign or something over a big corruption case recently, forgot all the details. Probably more likely to get your firearms outright stolen from the LEO there than seized anyway![]()
[QUOTE=newracer;2247913]13-14.5-104 3 A Petition must (b) IDENTIFY THE NUMBER, TYPES, AND LOCATIONS OF ANY FIREARMS THE PETITIONER BELIEVES TO BE IN THE RESPONDENT'S CURRENT OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION, CUSTODY, OR CONTROL;
The way the reads, all the info that "must" be identified, can be made up: "petitioner *believes*". no burden of proof from the accuser. With this vaguely defined proof, how does a judge determine a person warrants a visit from LEO?
My prediction: After the first time an attempt to serve such a warrant goes horribly wrong and the serving LEO is injured or killed, subsequent "Red Flag" service will be made by SWAT teams, probably under "No Knock" conditions. All of this despite no charges being filed, and no convictions being adjudicated.
Light a fire for a man, and he'll be warm for a day, light a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life...
Discussion is an exchange of intelligence. Argument is an exchange of
ignorance. Ever found a liberal that you can have a discussion with?
Te occidere possunt sed te edere non possunt nefas est
Sane person with a better sight picture
3,000 problems with these of a severe nature that shouldn't even pass a liberal court.
a) Preponderance of the evidence standard for criminal wrongs handled in an ex-parte hearing which guarantees 99% issuance.
b) Anonymous accusations triggering red-flags in an ex-parte nature
c) No bonds to protect against innocents damages (required, btw, for civil seizures)
d) No ramification of any kind for false reporting
e) "suspect" has the obligation to pursue relief at their cost at a higher evidentiary burden, no right to an attorney
f) Clear criminal punishment (immediate forfeiture of firearm rights + jail time for refusing to comply)
g) No right to face your accuser or cross examine them in any kind (or even for them to be identified)
And I could go on. But even David Koppel doesn't want to call this shit out for what it is, it's en vogue in our society to say "Well, we need SOMETHING". All the legal challenges are weak. And at the end of the day, our courts operate on a "well, we need something, so we'll keep it" concept instead of "This is clearly in violation of virtually all constitutional protections and therefore, is not the solution".
Day by day, there is far less distinction between our courts, and those of China or North Korea.
It's all fun and games, until you have a balanced budget.
We have to stop Government. They are out of control. And the only way to stop them is to make them accountable. And the first step to making them accountable, is to ask them to balance the budget.
-John
Last edited by iego; 12-12-2019 at 19:23.
The Great Kazoo's Feedback
"when you're happy you enjoy the melody but, when you're broken you understand the lyrics".