Sheriff's team seizing guns from thousands in Illinois - Page 9
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 109

Thread: Sheriff's team seizing guns from thousands in Illinois

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Great State of Texas "Remember the Alamo"
    Posts
    2,825

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by MI .45 View Post
    Judges sign warrants for raiding wrong addresses, the police perform warrantless searches with little probable cause, and vague lawful authorities make questionable determinations of guilt; does it not make sense that even more mistakes can and will be made on the issue of weapons confiscation?

    I'm all for sorting out the felons and the mentally ill from having firearms but at this juncture I cannot see the authorities making sound and Constitutional judgements where overwhelming force and heavy handed tactics are now the norm. All of this enforcement appears to be at an all too convenient time and I'm sure many rightful owners will get swept up in all of this. Where guns are concerned, any seizure will result in a very long and difficult process of gaining the property back if at all. IMO, all of this selective enforcement is simply another means of taking our guns and our rights away. All while using complicit, compliant, and ultimately imperious local and state police forces.
    ^^^My thought's exactly^^^
    Fascist's are Magicians...They can make our Property, our Freedom's & even our Children 'Disappear'.
    ~Outlaw~

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by gunnerbob View Post
    He fell victim to his own "pre-crime" system... he went on the run to avoid being imprisoned for "pre-murder".
    Ahhh. You are correct GB! I remember now!

  4. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by tricolordad View Post
    It must be terrible to live with no faith in mankind.
    Let me straighten you out on this. You have small kids right? Have you ever had one murdered? I know first hand the pain of having a small child ripped apart. Stabbed in the neck, chest and genitals. Well, society had faith in mankind so he was eventually paroled. And guess what? He did it again. Two boys this time. Could have been your child. Would you have blamed society? The courts? Who do you see about that? Well, he was released after the second crime... because society had faith in mankind AGAIN! And he was caught a few years ago trying to setup a camping trip for little boys through a Baptist church who didn't do background checks. What do you think would have happened on that camping trip? Still want to have faith that violent offenders should have gun rights restored? Err on the side of safety. You commit a violent felony and you do so knowing your gun rights are gone forever. Such people should be glad they're still alive.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnerbob
    Hypothetical: Okay, let's suppose I do time b/c of a homicide conviction. One day, I am coming home from work and I find my door open slightly, so I proceed with caution. What I find in my home is my wife being raped by a violent criminal... I, being me... proceed to beat this mother f*cker to death for violating my wife in the worst way. I continue to punch his face until it caves in and my hands are broken... he's dead. I gladly do my time... I know what I did, I killed that guy. But y'know what, people like that don't deserve anything other than punishment, IMO. So, I serve 10 or 20 years for the felony and get out. I never hurt anyone in prison and I had never hurt anyone prior, I just did what needed to be done. I reunite with my family and want to live a normal life again... So, I still don't deserve the right to self-defense with a firearm? What say you?
    Where do I even begin. Absurd response. There is no such thing as a hypothetical situation. You can't create a fictitious set of circumstances to make a point. People don't go to jail for using deadly force to stop the rape of their wife in their own home. Find me a legit case not nonsense. And remember, experience is the greatest teacher. Plenty of people tell me how I should think. But they haven't viewed the body of a nine-year-old, dead, a bloody mess on an emergency room gurney. You know one eye was open and one closed? I couldn't close it. Do you know that when a little child is stabbed in the chest the knife actually comes out through their back. Their little bodies are smaller than the knife. Can't get those visions out of my head no matter how much time passes. And no amount of therapy changes that fact.
    .
    You guys may get to learn for yourselves someday. Hopefully not. You commit a violent felony and every day above ground is a bonus. The California Supreme Court just upheld the release of 10,000 criminal due to overcrowding. Want to give them all gun rights? how about if a few hundred move to your neighborhood with their shiny new guns?
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by JJFlash View Post
    IMO, once you've paid your debt to society (and I mean TRUE debt, no plea bargains, no early release), all your rights should be restored.
    You don't owe a debt to society. You owe it to your victim and in some cases you can never repay it. Head over to the cemetery, dig-up what's left of our little guy and ask him if the debt has been paid. Ask my wife if the debt has been paid when she awakes from one of those nightmares. After all, she found him molested, stabbed but still alive. He died in her arms.
    .
    You people have zero understanding of this issue. Too much TV. Well, you don't turn-off the TV and go to bed. You live everyday with the damage.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  5. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Nothing says a court must be involved in the process, it is an either/or proposition between a court, board, commission, OR other "lawful authority." The commas and the word "or" leaves a court as a simple option to whatever "lawful authority" chooses to leave the courts out of the process. That removes the constitutional mandate of due process in the mental competency provisions of NICS, and that is my objection to it, not just that there's a legal way to disarm somebody who "needs" to be disarmed under wholly constitutionally sound processes.

    Blues
    SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

    (c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

    (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

    (A) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

    (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

    (C) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    .
    Adjudicated = court order
    .
    My post wasn't an answer to you. It merely stated that any denial of firearms rights should be based purely upon the findings of a court, based in multiple opinions and objective findings, thus avoiding fourth and fifth amendment issues. Even in looney NY anyone denied firearm rights based on mental health issues is entitled to due process under CPLR Article 78. You are afforded an opportunity to challenge the decision in a formal proceeding. And if you prevail the state must notify NICS as per the law quoted by you.
    .
    Consider Cho at Virginia Tech. A judge ordered mental health counseling. It was adjudicated. He should have failed the NICS check until cleared again to own a gun. So it was left up to Cho to answer the mental health question honestly on the 4473 form. Of course being a lunatic he's not gonna do that.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  6. #85
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Elma NY
    Posts
    1,638
    To all the kool aid drinkers that are somehow comfortable with the facts that
    A)A the guberment has a list of who owns what and
    B) because someone in the guberment decides that you are no longer qualified to own a licence to own those items on that list.
    I give you New York State.
    My Governor said an I quote "And I say to you forget the extremists. It’s simple; no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer"
    So once someone decides you are an extremist you can lose your rights. To those that say well they are just taking guns away from felons. This same governor passed a law that makes you a felon if you loan your firearm to a buddy to shoot a round of trap unless you run a NICs Check on that person prior to transferring the firearm.
    Any gun registration scheme is a slippery slope including the NICs system and the FFL paperwork.

    I am just a breath away from being labeled an extremist and being a felon as will be you someday if you are not careful now.
    Tolerance of the intolerant leads to the destruction of tolerance. “You are also reminded that any inappropriate remarks or jokes concerning security may result in your arrest,” in the land of the free.

  7. #86
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by golocx4 View Post
    To all the kool aid drinkers that are somehow comfortable with the facts that
    A)A the guberment has a list of who owns what and
    B) because someone in the guberment decides that you are no longer qualified to own a licence to own those items on that list.
    I give you New York State.
    My Governor said an I quote "And I say to you forget the extremists. It’s simple; no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs ten bullets to kill a deer"
    So once someone decides you are an extremist you can lose your rights. To those that say well they are just taking guns away from felons. This same governor passed a law that makes you a felon if you loan your firearm to a buddy to shoot a round of trap unless you run a NICs Check on that person prior to transferring the firearm.
    Any gun registration scheme is a slippery slope including the NICs system and the FFL paperwork.

    I am just a breath away from being labeled an extremist and being a felon as will be you someday if you are not careful now.
    While you're definitely right about this disturbing trend you can still loan your shotgun to someone. Shotguns are not registered and one not need a license or permit of any kind to shoot. Take a peek at S265.20 of the penal law. It exempts hunters and sport shooters from criminal charges of any kind... unless of course they cap the guy next to them in the ass.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  8. #87
    We need Sheriff's in this country that will stand up to the Fed's and protect the peoples 2nd. Amendment Rights! We need Oath Keepers, NOT Oath takers!

  9. #88
    Separate your guns from your emotions and you won't need any "oaths."

  10. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,677
    Quote Originally Posted by kwimby View Post
    Separate your guns from your emotions and you won't need any "oaths."
    Say what?
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  11. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    SEC. 101. ENHANCEMENT OF REQUIREMENT THAT FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES PROVIDE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM.

    (c) Standard for Adjudications, Commitments, and Commitments Related to Mental Health-

    (1) IN GENERAL- No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if--

    (A) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, has been set aside or expunged, or the person has otherwise been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring;

    (B) the person has been found by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that was the basis of the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, or has otherwise been found to be rehabilitated through any procedure available under law; or

    (C) the adjudication, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with section 922(g)(4) of title 18, United States Code, except that nothing in this section or any other provision of law shall prevent a Federal department or agency from providing to the Attorney General any record demonstrating that a person was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    After the word "except" above, the subsequent text is speaking only of court proceedings. Before the word "except," "board, commission, or other lawful authority" are options to using a court. It's called an exception to the rule, thus the word except.
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Adjudicated = court order
    Leave out all the commas and words that modify the meaning of "adjudicated," and you're absolutely right. Include 'em though, and you're absolutely wrong.

    Besides, your definition is wrong to begin with. To wit:

    ad·ju·di·cate (-jd-kt)v. ad·ju·di·cat·ed, ad·ju·di·cat·ing, ad·ju·di·cates
    v.tr.1. To hear and settle (a case) by judicial procedure.
    2. To study and settle (a dispute or conflict): The principal adjudicated our quarrel.


    3. To act as a judge.
    Under the NICS law, the "judicial procedure" that #1 refers to can be constructed under the auspices of a court (the only right way under the Constitution), commission, board,or other lawful authority.

    #2 proves my point - "The principal adjudicated our quarrel," not a court.

    #3 proves it too - "To act as a judge," not necessary to be a sworn, constitutional judge of the law.

    Nowhere in the dictionary definition of the word "adjudicate" or "adjudicated" is the word "court" found.



    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    My post wasn't an answer to you.
    Then next time don't hit "Reply With Quote" with my post being the one quoted when you reply.

    NICS is federal law. It overrides your oh-so-Constitution-compliant NYS law. Under NICS, someone can be deemed mentally deficient to own a firearm by any court, commission, board,or other lawful authority, and "lawful authority" is not defined as to how it becomes such anywhere within the "Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" that NICS is an integral part of.

    Prior to the NICS revisions of 2007 that the N R A shilled for, only a court was authorized to disarm citizens. The "commission, board,or other lawful authority" language was added in those 2007 revisions. Your NYS laws have nothing to with it.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast