-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Comm2A Sues over Property Forfeiture
- Thread starter Comm2A
- Start date
![[thumbsup]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/044.gif "Thumbs Up [thumbsup]")
This decision really bugs me.
- With the tow lot analogy, would the courts let a tow lot get away with charging fees well in excess of a vehicle's value? How about extra fees for accessories that go along with a vehicle? Car antenna storage fees?
- This whole "not a state actor" thing doesn't pass the smell test. It's well known that several PDs call them up specifically to permanently confiscate property without due process. This isn't even close to an arms-length transaction. It's as if NEMLEC and METROLEC can technically compete for no-knock raid contracts, and since they are private entities they can violate civil rights all day long without recourse because they're not state actors, right?
- With the tow lot analogy, would the courts let a tow lot get away with charging fees well in excess of a vehicle's value? How about extra fees for accessories that go along with a vehicle? Car antenna storage fees?
- This whole "not a state actor" thing doesn't pass the smell test. It's well known that several PDs call them up specifically to permanently confiscate property without due process. This isn't even close to an arms-length transaction. It's as if NEMLEC and METROLEC can technically compete for no-knock raid contracts, and since they are private entities they can violate civil rights all day long without recourse because they're not state actors, right?
OfficerObie59
NES Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
There were no limitations on the fourth test concerning tow operators. The case law on the tow case was from the 9th Circuit. It wasn't limiting at all. It was persuasive authority.
EDIT: So we're clear, I'm referring to the subheading c on page 20, specifically the Stypmann case, which I though was the best argument of the bunch.
My bad, I was responding to the quoted language in your post.
Don't confuse judicial abdication with judicial restraint.
One man's unconstitutional law is another man's democratically enacted policy decision. I'm far closer to the writings of Clark Neily than you perhaps think, but the laws enacted by democratic methods do need to count for something. I think there's indeed value in judges not making law willy nilly--befre you know it, the law they make is merely being used to suit there own policy preferences. You know, kinda how the SJC deals with gun cases.
Last edited:
Billsail
NES Member
You certainly can make a right turn on a red arrow.
(f) Right and Left Red Arrows. Vehicular traffic facing a steady red arrow signal shall not enter
the intersection to make the movement indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the intersection
to make a movement permitted by another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if
none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or if none, then before
entering the intersection, and shall remain standing until an indication permitting the movement
indicated by such red arrow shown. Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, vehicular
traffic facing any steady red signal may cautiously enter the intersection to turn right, or to turn left
from a one-way street into a one-way street, after stopping. Such vehicular traffic shall yield the
right of way to pedestrains lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using
the intersection.
Gentlemen,
If you'd like to discuss traffic rules, please do so in another thread. Seriously - this is an important thread and should not be hijacked willy-nilly.
If you'd like to discuss traffic rules, please do so in another thread. Seriously - this is an important thread and should not be hijacked willy-nilly.
Gotcha. When I said limitations, I meant the limitations of government from the constitution itself, not any of these tests they created out of thin air.
The two can often seem to blur, but I'm not really talking about restraint, as I'm not talking about judges creating law. Quite the opposite really. I'm talking about judges upholding law by invalidating unlawful legislation. The way the SCOTUS has handled gun cases is often an excellent example of abdication. Using balancing tests or rational basis tests is a way to avoid doing their job and ruling on both facts and most importantly the constitution itself. This is as opposed to restraint, when dealing with things that are not in fact violations of rights. If they rule in any way other than completely upholding the legislation, then clearly there are constitutional issues.
With that said, your first sentence here is spot on. It is a matter of perspective. Sadly, I find the perspective of many to be distorted greatly with good reason. The Constitution has been perverted so greatly already seemingly obvious violations are widely accepted.
TOM1960
Banned
Here in Alabama, judges are elected officials. If they tried any anti-gun crap like the politically-appointed-for-life judges in MA, they would be out of office very quickly!B-b-but we have to vote a straight R ticket otherwise the D's will appoint bad judges!
Judge Young is an enemy of freedom.
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,530
- Likes
- 33,561
Care to guess what would happen to the re-election prospects of a judge in MA who came down with solid, pro-gun rights decisions, if we had elected judges?
Alabama voters != Massachusetts voters
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 11,135
- Likes
- 1,600
nothing compared to what we have IMHO
Tom, do you vote for judges by name down there?
When I lived in CT, we also voted for judges. The ballot had 2 choices . . . vote for Dem or Rep judges . . . no names!!!
![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
No idea who you were voting for, none at all.
Garys
NES Member
By name. That includes AL Supreme Court Justices.
CA uses a sort of hybrid system. Judges are appointed, but must be periodically confirmed by ballot during regular elections. Which is why the late Rose Bird was removed as Chief Justice of the CA Supreme Court in 1986.
CA uses a sort of hybrid system. Judges are appointed, but must be periodically confirmed by ballot during regular elections. Which is why the late Rose Bird was removed as Chief Justice of the CA Supreme Court in 1986.
Tom, do you vote for judges by name down there?
When I lived in CT, we also voted for judges. The ballot had 2 choices . . . vote for Dem or Rep judges . . . no names!!!
^^This
You don't vote for your federal judges. They're appointed by the President and confirmed like the Senate like all the rest.
The risk in MA would be full retard levels. Imagine if the 128 belt moonbats got to pick all the judges by popular vote... every judge within the 128 belt would pretty much be some iteration of Stalin/Mao. If it was by county, Middlesex, Suffolk, and Essex would be far worse than they are now, guaranteed.
The judges we have now range from a few decent ones, a lot of mediocre ones, and some pure crap ones. If they were all elected probably at least 60% would be pure crap. Remember the voting bloc were talking about here.
-Mike
Last edited:
TOM1960
Banned
I threw this out as conversation bait. Having been a MA resident for 53 years and an FID holder for over 35 years, I know too well what the political realities are in that state. Speaking of FIDs, has there been any word of police chiefs using their new powers to petition courts to deny/revoke FIDs? I suppose it is only a matter of time before this gets abused as well.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Nothing will happen before 1/1/2015.
Quiet
Banned
Just 75 more unsuitable days to 1/2/2015
(Unless you're working and/or the courts are accepting new cases on New Year's Day?)
Although there could be a few chiefs with hardons to petition the courts against some guys and their FIDs on suitability and IIRC that petition acts as an immediate temporary suspension....
Last edited:
NES Thread on the topic, including addressing the "news" AND Holder's replacement (hint - she is really gung ho on.... civil forfeiture).
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...to-uniformed-thieves-one-department-at-a-time
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...to-uniformed-thieves-one-department-at-a-time
It seems to me that the problem is the CoP transfer of the weapons to the bonded warehouse quickly and without notice of the action to the owner of the weapon.
Would not a solution be to require the CoP to hold the weapon for a minimum amount of time to allow the owner to find someone to transfer the weapon to?
I.e. to add at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph of Ch 140 section 129D something like:
"... and further provided that the licensing authority shall not transfer to such dealer possession of any weapon before 30 days from the time the licensing authority takes possession of such weapon."
BTW I note that weapons need not be surrendered if "an appeal of the revocation or suspension [of the firearms license] is pending" ... this move would give an owner time to find his own transferee (before the expected denial of appeal and surrender of weapons).
Would not a solution be to require the CoP to hold the weapon for a minimum amount of time to allow the owner to find someone to transfer the weapon to?
I.e. to add at the end of the first sentence of the second paragraph of Ch 140 section 129D something like:
"... and further provided that the licensing authority shall not transfer to such dealer possession of any weapon before 30 days from the time the licensing authority takes possession of such weapon."
BTW I note that weapons need not be surrendered if "an appeal of the revocation or suspension [of the firearms license] is pending" ... this move would give an owner time to find his own transferee (before the expected denial of appeal and surrender of weapons).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,530
- Likes
- 33,561
Some PDs do exactly this.
Some others will call Dowd and say "hurry up, his attorney just called to say his dealer is on the way".
This does not superceed the 209A prohibition on possession, which probably accounts for the majority of confiscations where the gun is not an evidence gun (i.e., not eligible for Bonded Warehouse treatment)
Also, it is not clear if asserting "I am appealing" when a licensing a authority declares your LTC revoked and shows up at your door to take the guns has any standing. You can go ahead an give it a try if you like.
Last edited:
It is "clear" to the LE community that an appeal HAS TO BE IN PROCESS BEFORE they show up at your door to confiscate for this to work. However, they hand you the notice and confiscate at the same time, thus you have no opportunity (as far as they see it) to appeal and hold onto your guns/ammo/mags/components (assuming non-209A issue) before they take them away.
Another case where they write laws with no F'n clue as to what they are writing. It's the "law of unintended consequences"!!!
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
And the appeal brief has been filed.
http://comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/104-jarvis
http://comm2a.org/index.php/55-projects/104-jarvis
Just curious, al beit getting too far ahead. If the case is ultimately decided in favor of jarvis, et al. What would be the financial liability of the defendants, specifically village vault. Would they need to refund the value of the firearms for theses plaintiffs or all people they screwed? Just wondering as a large financial obligation could put them out of business I imagine.
Thanks
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
The judge who ruled the towing cases as not analogous, made clear that VV was liable, no question if VV was a state actor. So big time liability. Everyone who lost shit within the three years prior can sue him.
Similar threads
