This was in today's (07/21/08) NEW YORK POST
-
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.
Gun Seizure Lawsuit
- Thread starter Optimistic Paranoid
- Start date
I would really like to see what police used as grounds for their warrent to search his home and seize his lawfully owned firearms. I don't think a single instance of "disruptive behavior" justifies that though.
Amendment 2:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - Violated
Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Violated.
Does any part of the constitution mean anything anymore?
Amendment 2:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - Violated
Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Violated.
Does any part of the constitution mean anything anymore?
MikeH
NES Member
Agreed. I'd also like to know if he was arrested or charged with any crime. He upset someone enough to call 911; but that doesn't mean he broke any laws.
Heh, that's the village I was born in and lived in until I was 7. When I was 5 there was a mob hit 2 houses down from us while I was out on the front lawn playing. Never a dull moment, even now.
icyclefar
NES Member
His behavior was disruptive!![[sad]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/004.gif "Sad [sad]")
My son was accused of the same thing. Thank goodness we were not raided. Then again, he was in pre-school at the time.
![[shocked]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/007.gif "Shocked [shocked]")
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
So....you have read the affidavit in support of the search warrant and have enough legal knowledge to have deemed it unconstitutional.
There is not enough information here to comment on what was proper or improper.
Sorry, I should be more clear about that next time. If it was nothing more than disruptive behavior, as the NYP states, then yes I'd think the search and seizure is unconstitutional.
IANAL, that's just my opinion.
Remember though, the burden of proof is on the man with the warrent, not the person whose house is being searched and property seized.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2008
- Messages
- 3,435
- Likes
- 401
Nowhere does it state the reason for the search...you are making assumptions based upon limited information.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
There's nothing in the news report to suggest that she was THERE when this went down, or that SHE put pressure on the cops to raid him.
If it turns out that they acted based on a complaint from one of her local office staff, it wouldn't surprise me if the courts throw out the suit against her and just let this guy sue the town police department.
Regards
John
This sounds like a case of David versus Goliath,only Goliath has the power of the entire US Govt. to back her up. I don't think her local office should be immune from a suit as they are hired by McCarthy to assist the people she represents in congress,take opinions on pending legislation etc.
I'm not an employer but if I were and one of my employees cause harm to someone I COULD be held responsible for what ever harm they cause.
And it WAS an employee from her local office that called the cops.
bfm
NES Member
IANAL.
If someone feels threatened and calls 911, they can then be sued for what the cops do after they respond to the 911 call?
If you are an employer, and you're not even there, and your employee feels threatened by someone visiting your office and calls 911, that's grounds to sue YOU?
<shrug> well, IANAL
Now, if it turns out that McCarthy called the cops from DC and leaned on em to "do something about that gun nut". that's a whole different ball of wax.
My suspicion is that the guy's lawyer sued her just so he could find out, through the discovery process, whether something like that happened or not. Whether or not it did will determine whether she can be sued, or not.
But as I said, IANAL
Regards
John
<sarcasm>The guy is a trouble maker!... </sarcasm>
http://www.meetup.com/members/4002810
Seriously though... there's probably more to this story than what's being reported (I'd like to see a copy of the complaint and search warrant).
I have no experience in the law/justice field, but isn't obtaining and executing a search warrant within 24hrs of a complaint being filed rather unusual (unless
as in this case the complainant has connections or there's reason to suspect an immediate threat?).
One other thing... NY requires handguns to be registered.
It's probably not far fetched to assume that the police punched this guys name in the computer, saw that he had several handguns and expedited, executed the search warrant based on that information.
So much for the baseless argument that "registration doens't lead to confiscation".
http://www.meetup.com/members/4002810
Seriously though... there's probably more to this story than what's being reported (I'd like to see a copy of the complaint and search warrant).
I have no experience in the law/justice field, but isn't obtaining and executing a search warrant within 24hrs of a complaint being filed rather unusual (unless
as in this case the complainant has connections or there's reason to suspect an immediate threat?).
One other thing... NY requires handguns to be registered.
It's probably not far fetched to assume that the police punched this guys name in the computer, saw that he had several handguns and expedited, executed the search warrant based on that information.
So much for the baseless argument that "registration doens't lead to confiscation".
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Yeah, he probably demanded that Ms McCarthy actually DO HER JOB push to have our borders more secure.His behavior was disruptive!
Ah, yes... the obligatory Half Cocked knee-jerk defense of cops... in spite of not having any more information than anyone else reading this article.
pdm
NES Member
To be fair, if the guy made threatening statements, that can be an offense.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
mmm... so they will now deny us this too?
Think about it... a bunch of us just sent tea bags to the state house... what if they decide to shut down the state house because of a bunch of "suspicios packages"?
Then they get all of our return addresses (or names) and deem us a "threat" and then raid our homes.
So as I see it now... the civil rights that they have violated on him are;
1st
2nd
4th
5th
Am I missing any?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
mmm... so they will now deny us this too?
Think about it... a bunch of us just sent tea bags to the state house... what if they decide to shut down the state house because of a bunch of "suspicios packages"?
Then they get all of our return addresses (or names) and deem us a "threat" and then raid our homes.
So as I see it now... the civil rights that they have violated on him are;
1st
2nd
4th
5th
Am I missing any?
Last edited:
pdm
NES Member
Yeah, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater and if you yell at someone that you're gonna f***ing kill them, maybe you need a timeout or something. Raided and stripped of all your guns? Wouldn't be my first reaction, no.
correct... but they only said he was "disruptive" and "threatening" but never said what the "threats" were. I can tell you that some people feel threatened when someone raises their voice. If he said, "I'm going to load up and be back here in an hour to take you all out." then i would agree... although the PD response (as usual) would be late apparently.
More then likely he said (with a raised voice) something like, "this isn't over, im going to fight [you] on this!" is that threatening? If he was truely "threatening" then the PD should have arrested him right away.
obviously im guessing, becaues the article doesn't say.. but that leads me more to believe that he never made a direct threat...
If i tell someone that "you'll get your's". Is that a threat? or am I expressing that I feel that God judges us all in the end? or that I believe in karma?
Again, i dont know... but i would think that a real threat would have prompted a faster response from the PD.
this sounds more like harrasment from the government.
Last edited:
pdm
NES Member
Well, I agree that this is most likely a powerful pol pushing around an opponent, but without any meat on the "threatening behavior"... *shrug*
Coyote Whiskey
NES Member
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Oh, lord, not again. Actually, yes you can - if the theatre is on fire. If it's not, it's not "free speech" but more like "inciting to riot".
And please, can we agree on a definition of "free speech"? It's not yelling "Fire", and was never intended to be such. It's more like standing up in, say, a crowded town square and making some sort of speech. Like, say, talking about how Obama speaks out of both sides of his face. Or making a speech about Carolyn McCarthy and how she hasn't got a clue, and how she should be making sure that Congress listens to what the people want, like, say, a big-ass wall across the Californian, Arizonan and Texan desert.
Similar threads
