Gun Seizure Lawsuit

[matt1956]

so sending letters to your elected offical...

still no quote on a "threat" though...

at most she could claim harrasment... but she is an elected offical, and you have the right to address them.

 

[Nickle]

Lots of emotions and assumptions running wild here.

Well, I'd say the guy is in the right (opinion, not fact). Why?

Because the incident happened last year, and the civil court case is still pending. If the suit wasn't valid, McCarthy would certainly have done everything she could to get it dismissed. If it was blatantly frivolous, it would've been dismissed.

Also notice that nowhere in the news stories did it mention he ever got charged (let alone convicted) on any crime. I'm not one to believe the newspulper (misspelling intended), but I know they usually paint the worst possible picture they can of gun owners. Seeing that at least one of those stories ran in a NYC paper, you've got to figure they'll side with McCarthy.

Now my opinion is the guy is a dumbass. Too stupid to move out of an area he KNOWS is bad for him.

 

[seanc]

Originally Posted by pdm
Yeah, but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater

Can we please give this one a friggin rest?? Can we please put a 5 days waiting period on usage of this? Or an outright ban?

Is this the ONLY example that anybody is able to come up with?? Why not just put an addendum on to the 1st. "the Crowded Theatre Clause"..

UGH

 

[Half Cocked]

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.

Ummm....you are making my point. I am not defending the police nor am I condemning the defendant. I am not commenting on the case as I have also pointed out that there has not been enough information.

 

[Skald]

Police seized his weapons on March 20, 2007, the lawsuit said. Aides to the congresswoman told him he did not live in her district, and that he was represented by Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford), the lawsuit said.

Records show Razzano lives in King's district, but Razzano submitted in his lawsuit a certified copy of his voting records showing him registered in McCarthy's district.

This should prove to be VERY interesting now. I wonder if the FEC will come in and check this out.

 

[Cabinetman]

Bruce Stern (our NRA director who recently died) once told me that as a gun owner in Connecticut, we were always "potential defendants". Looks like that’s true on Long Island, too.

If Razzano had had no firearms, one would wonder if his house would have been raided at all. As mentioned by another poster, this case does lift the veil off the 'gun registration leads to confiscation' issue pretty clearly.

Firearm ownership has always been and is now confirmed to be an individual right, protected by our Constitution just as any other right enumerated in that document. Yet, as firearm owners, we have to CONSTANTLY look over our shoulders and comply with a myriad of over 11,000 Federal, State and many times local gun laws. It's apparent now, however, that if anyone feels "threatened" by you, your collection can be confiscated without so much as a phone call. BTW, I'd bring your attention to the fact that here in Connecticut that law actually exists and allows police that very latitude. It has been exercised here, too, and gun owners have found their collections hauled off to some lock-up and they've had to fight, in court, to retrieve them, sometimes unsuccessfully just because someone made a phone call.

Now imagine, if you would, that you removed "firearms" from the equation and inserted "books" or "newspapers" or "meetings". Imagine if those of us who exercised their "right to free speech" or " the right to assembly" had to comply with over 11,000 Fed or State laws and had to watch over their shoulder should someone complain. And, imagine the rancor that would occur should the policy raid a newspaper office and haul away all their printing equipment or strip the shelves of all their printed material just because someone felt "threatened" by what you or your group was saying. Or better yet, a group of citizens were summarily arrested for “assembling", just because someone felt threatened.

If those constitutionally protected citizens were treated even marginally as firearm owners are, there would be anarchy and citizens would not stand for it. At least I don't think so but, gosh, who knows today!

I don't know all the details of this case and for all I know Mr. Razzano was a firebrand and had a hard time keeping his 'enthusiasm' under control about the situation he wanted handled regarding the illegal aliens in his community. Because he was NOT arrested or even sited for threatening, however, one can legitimately conclude that this occurred because someone in Congress just out of touch with reality and overstepping her bounds in 'wielding' her "power". And, one would figure that the local police department would have attempted to figure out what the heck was going on before acting so unilaterally and heavy-handedly. There is a LOT of blame to go around here but very little rests with Mr. Razzano, imho.

The bottom line is that a lesson has to be taught here and this case should be thumb tacked on the walls of every police department in America as to what NOT to do in a situation like this. It's not going to be tolerated if the facts of this case prove to be in Mr. Razzano's favor.

It's going to be interesting to watch, for sure!


Rome

 

[Half Cocked]

The bottom line is that a lesson has to be taught here and this case should be thumb tacked on the walls of every police department in America as to what NOT to do in a situation like this. It's not going to be tolerated if the facts of this case prove to be in Mr. Razzano's favor.

And what FACTS have been presented to draw such a conclusion?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Bruce Stern (our NRA director who recently died) once told me

Hopefully he told you while you two were lounging in that famous gun room of his

 

[Kurtz]

I believe he was charged with Possession of a "Shoulder Thing That Goes Up".

Yeah she's pretty intelligent isn't she? she has no clue what a barrel shroud is but she wants to ban them. She's got that barn yard expression down perfect.

 

[Erebus]

Also notice that nowhere in the news stories did it mention he ever got charged (let alone convicted) on any crime.

I guess this is what bothers me the most. His guns have been confiscated for over a year and he has been charged with no crime, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. It seems to me as if the PD has imposed a punishment(revocation of this 2A right) for a crime that they determined he was guilty of without so much as charging him with it.

 

[gene]

To be fair, if the guy made threatening statements, that can be an offense.

Like "I am not going to vote for you or I will do whatever I can to see that your not elected"!

 

[gene]

Looks like complaining about illegals in New York is considered threatening!

 

[Half Cocked]

I guess this is what bothers me the most. His guns have been confiscated for over a year and he has been charged with no crime, giving him no opportunity to defend himself. It seems to me as if the PD has imposed a punishment(revocation of this 2A right) for a crime that they determined he was guilty of without so much as charging him with it.

I know this was NY, but in Ma would a COP not be able to revoke your LTC due to "suitability" over an incident such as this?


Would this not lead to confiscation of the guns with no charges?

Like I have said here before. There is not enough information in this case to either defend or condemn either side.

 

[Half Cocked]

Looks like complaining about illegals in New York is considered threatening!

It is not necessarily WHAT is said but HOW it is said.

 

[06LemansC6]

I know this was NY, but in Ma would a COP not be able to revoke your LTC due to "suitability" over an incident such as this?


Would this not lead to confiscation of the guns with no charges?

Well MA is just a fine a state as NY. Good luck getting away with it here in NH.

 

[mark056]

My son was accused of the same thing. Thank goodness we were not raided. Then again, he was in pre-school at the time.

Consider yourself lucky....that is probably the next step the state will take. "Oh, little Johnny was so disruptive today...I'll bet his parents have GUNS in the house..better take them and little Johnny away from such disruptive and evil people and influences. Quick, call the DA get a warrant, they will notify the State Police that a gun confiscation/parental suitability raid is going to go down...and of course DSS because little Johnny is going to have to be put in foster care for his own good."

I'm not joking.

Mark L.

 

[Erebus]

I know this was NY, but in Ma would a COP not be able to revoke your LTC due to "suitability" over an incident such as this?

If every state did it that would not make it right.

Would this not lead to confiscation of the guns with no charges?

Yep it would

Like I have said here before. There is not enough information in this case to either defend or condemn either side.

Perhaps not. But it is the responsibility of the people denying a right to demonstrate why said right is being denied. Have the police released those reasons and the newspaper didn't include them or have the police not released them? I would like to know specifically what the threat was.

Such as with the case of the guy denied a CCW permit in NH, while I think the suitability clause has ample room for abuse I think there was plenty of reason to determine that guy unsuitable and that the clause was properly applied. But in this case we have been given no reason other than the accusation of the staffer that he made threats.

 

[LoginName]

Consider yourself lucky....that is probably the next step the state will take. "Oh, little Johnny was so disruptive today...I'll bet his parents have GUNS in the house..better take them and little Johnny away from such disruptive and evil people and influences. Quick, call the DA get a warrant, they will notify the State Police that a gun confiscation/parental suitability raid is going to go down...and of course DSS because little Johnny is going to have to be put in foster care for his own good."

I'm not joking.

Mark L.

Well... we're getting awful damn close to that...

"I feel like I've been targeted," said Lau, whose gun license was unceremoniously stripped in a visit Brookline Police Sgt. Michael Raskin made to Lau's workplace to confiscate a firearm kept at work in a safe. "I felt [Raskin] treated me like a criminal," Lau said.

Lau acknowledged that a teenage son living in his home had had some scrapes with the law, and recalled being told by Raskin, "In my opinion, your home is not safe for firearms."

Lau said he had told Brookline Police that he would agree to store his three pistols at police headquarters, if that would result in a renewal of his license to carry. "They told me that would not be necessary," Lau said.

http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2005/02/if-this-doesnt-piss-you-off.html

 

[Scrivener]

Raskin is no longer the licensing officer and has not been for a good 2 years.

Which is NOT to say that Brookline has improved.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

And what FACTS have been presented to draw such a conclusion?

he said *if*, meaning they arent all unveiled yet. Your reading comprehension is a bit off today.

 

[Half Cocked]

But it is the responsibility of the people denying a right to demonstrate why said right is being denied. Have the police released those reasons and the newspaper didn't include them or have the police not released them? I would like to know specifically what the threat was.

Such as with the case of the guy denied a CCW permit in NH, while I think the suitability clause has ample room for abuse I think there was plenty of reason to determine that guy unsuitable and that the clause was properly applied. But in this case we have been given no reason other than the accusation of the staffer that he made threats.

Yes...and the place for them to demonstrate this is in a court of law. There is no obligation to "advertise" why they did what they did.

If you are so concerned you can contact the local court and file a freedom of information act request for the court documents and you could learn the "Facts" yourself.

 

[Half Cocked]

he said *if*, meaning they arent all unveiled yet. Your reading comprehension is a bit off today.

His "if" would indicate that there had been some FACTS presented.
Maybe I read it wrong but his statement was indicating that the police had done wrong and that other officers should learn from their mistake...

The bottom line is that a lesson has to be taught here and this case should be thumb tacked on the walls of every police department in America as to what NOT to do in a situation like this. It's not going to be tolerated if the facts of this case prove to be in Mr. Razzano's favor.

I am just wondering what FACTS he is basing that on.

Again...I am not defending the police..they may have fu@ked up but there is no information to base it on.

Any wing nut can file a lawsuit and make a statement to the media but it does not mean that there is ANY BIT of CREDIBILITY to it.

No smart Police Department would comment publicly on a incident that they are facing a civil suit over.

 

[namedpipes]

...
Any wing nut can file a lawsuit and make a statement to the media but it does not mean that there is ANY BIT of CREDIBILITY to it.
...

Just as surely as it does not mean there ISN'T any bit of credibility to it.

...
No smart Police Department would comment publicly on a incident that they are facing a civil suit over.

True enough.

 

[jcr]

update

Blog post by a guy who's spoken with the plaintiff.

I'm sure some facts will be disputed by the defendants, but how do they get around the actual taking of the guns?

If it really was "give us your guns or we will arrest you" that's a tough choice. Especially if they come back and say that you voluntarily surrendered them.


How to Lose Your Guns Without Due Process in Freeport
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/08/how-to-lose-your-guns-without-due.html

 

[pdm]

If those are the facts, then the seizure is indefensible. If he didn't make any threatening statements, the police have no right to just take his guns.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Here is my comment on that blog from earlier today:

McCarthy and the police officers involved should be charged with Conspiracy Against Rights (Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241) and Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242).

Until scum like those involved are held responsible (preferably by being thrown in Federal prison), we will continue to be treated as serfs.

Until we hold these fascists accountable, we will continue to have our civil rights trampled.