P5 Guy
Member
Yes, once the person has paid their debt to society all rights and privileges of a US citizen should be re-enstated.
Last edited:
Police Seize Guns From Man Thought to Be Neo-Nazi Leader
- Thread starter old lady new shooter
- Start date
- Status
Yes, once the person has paid their debt to society all rights and privileges of a US citizen should be re-enstated.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,051
This guy is just a bomb waiting to be detonated. He has been watched by not only our federal Government, but Canada as well(kinda why he is prohibited from going there), for quite some time. His actions have spoken louder than his words. While I doubt very much that the taking of his guns had reduced the threat from him at all, I have no doubt this man is a serious threat to some folks and would not be surprised if he has not already participated in, if not just promoted/endorsed some form of hate crime.
So you think that a violent criminal should be free to walk unfettered in society as long as there's a rule that says they can't buy a gun?
BSA1
member
Then you do not understand the meaning of The Bill of Rights.
"Amendment 4
- Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
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."
A search warrant is used to find and seize evidence of crime (and in rarer cases evidence of intent to commit a crime). For example search warrants are commonly used to look for and seize illegal drugs. Or since this a Firearms Forum illegal possession of guns such as felon possessing guns or possession of "assault gun."
"Amendment 5
- Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Amendment 6
- Rights of Accused Persons in Criminal Cases
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
Amendment 7
- Rights in Civil Cases
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law.
Wow/ Where do we begin?
ERPO do not met the probable cause standard in Amendment 4. The police are not looking for evidence of crime or fruits of a crime. In fact they have no evidence of crime other than statement from informant.
Use of informants are widely misused by the Police to bring criminal charges against a accused. They are often found to be highly unreliable and in fact create the crime. Since a informant is the primary basis for a ERPO is the credibility of the informant vetted before it is issued? It has been mentioned more than once that ERPO’s can (and most likely are) be misused by angry ex’s and sleazy divorce lawyers.
ERPO are not a criminal charge.
Since ERPO are not indictment of a criminal charge he is deprived of his rights in the 6th Amendment. A Judge is the sole decision maker which I believe the Founding Fathers where trying to prevent. The fact that a hearing for the accused in a ERPO is done so quickly deprives the accused the opportunity to examine the charge, consult a lawyer and prepare a defense.
If a ERPO is a actually a civil case the accused is being denied a trial by jury,
I could write volumes on why ERPO's go to the core of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers were hunted by the British for using public forums to promote the thought of individual liberty.
Last edited:
Then try him in a court of law and attempt to convict him of whatever crime he’s alleged to have committed in front of a jury of his peers while having legal representation.
If that won’t happen then he’s entitled to the same rights you enjoy.
Huh? You didn't add anything - or counter any part of what I posted. No idea what you're talking about.
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
No conviction, no seizure. No compromises. Just non-news making headlines based around a massively over-inflated fear of neo Nazis and the KKK in today's political climate. It's a bogeyman that is useful to anti-gun causes. No one wants to be associated with neo Nazis so it's makes red flagging an easier pill to swallow for zumbos and soccer mom's alike.
alsaqr
Member
Yep, Many here are concerned about the alleged "Constitutional rights" of the leader of a vicious Nazi pack. The Nazi cared so much about his rights that he refused to attend the hearing.
The Nazi was stopped in Texas for speeding in Texas on 4 November, 2019. Several guns in the vehicle were claimed by the passenger, another Nazi; who also claimed some dope found in the vehicle. The passenger was charged by the federal prosecutor on doper in possession of firearms: That charge is good for up to ten years.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/...ammo/281-7901f669-b849-41ce-b7d1-b824de28a893
What were the Nazis doing in Texas? Bet they were spreading the word of Adolph Hitler.
The Nazi was stopped in Texas for speeding in Texas on 4 November, 2019. Several guns in the vehicle were claimed by the passenger, another Nazi; who also claimed some dope found in the vehicle. The passenger was charged by the federal prosecutor on doper in possession of firearms: That charge is good for up to ten years.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/...ammo/281-7901f669-b849-41ce-b7d1-b824de28a893
What were the Nazis doing in Texas? Bet they were spreading the word of Adolph Hitler.
bdickens
Member
Again? Didn't we just do this?
I’m actually concerned about everyone’s rights, probably because at some point this sort of thing might apply to me.
At the rate the left calls ordinary conservatives ‘Nazi’s’ for voting Republican it might help me out sooner than later.
That’s his prerogative.
https://www.king5.com/article/news/...ammo/281-7901f669-b849-41ce-b7d1-b824de28a893
Okay. What’s your point?
Didn't sound like any legal action was taken against Kaleb Cole. It was the other guys drugs supposedly.
Apparently he was.
Is that illegal?
There are all kinds of people in the world you’ll disagree with. Unless they’re actually doing something that’s illegal you’re out of luck.
This guy sounds like he’s right up to the line in terms of illegality, so I imagine he’ll step on it sooner or later and then he’ll be a felon and be barred from owning a gun.
Old Dog
Member
Well, um, I started a thread about this on the 11th ("ERPOs in action WA ...") ... ran a few pages before it petered out.
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/erpos-in-action-wa-no-details-no-charges.858869/
Seems as though the same ground is being covered with a few of the same players, as well as the couple of guys who don't think neo-Nazis deserve the same rights as everyone else.
As I said before, we can't pick and choose who we want covered by the Bill of Rights, regardless of how despicable we find their beliefs and statements to be.
BSA1
member
How do you know why he failed to attend the hearing?
Several reasons come to mind the first one being he lacks the money to hire a lawyer. It is a stacked deck for a layman with no legal training to represent themself against a trained prosecutor and no knowledge of rules of evidence, court procedures, how to question witness(es).
Or maybe he figures he doesn’t have a chance for a fair, impartial hearing before the same Judge that issued the EPRO to begin with.
Or maybe he doesn’t fully understand what a EPRO is, the legal procedures and how it affects his 2A rights.
Jack Ryan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 775
I can buy that, but short of knowing them myself and investigating every case, I have to go with the court AS A GENERAL RULE. Given good reason to think it may be other wise, I might look at SPECIFIC cases differently. Such as the government holding a person with out charges, rolling them like a Saturday night drunk and then publicly slandering them. All over events and topics the government has no business sticking their nose in to in the first place.
Jack Ryan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 775
And there in lies the rub.
"You certainly CAN..." But they hardly ever do. Laws rarely and only selectively enforced are not laws at all. They are crowd control tools. Sticks to beat back the peasants with. Sentence enhancement threats to control and oppress the populace. They are not LAWS for the purpose of governing the country.
Jack Ryan
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2019
- Messages
- 775
Then arrest and prosecute him for his ACTIONS.
larryh1108
Member
What has failed to be discussed is that this is a temporary seizure. Right or wrong, and that is up for debate, the courts then have to see a valid reason for the seizure or he gets the guns back. If I read it correctly, it says "up to one year" to prove the seizure was warranred and right. All this talk makes it seem like he never gets his guns back. That i not true.
Seriously? You know better than what you wrote
"If he wants a lawyer and cannot afford one, one will be appointed to him".
He has a way for legal counsel. Everything else you wrote is nothing but double speak.
Lastly, The government did not take anyone's right to own a gun. It is given up by the person convicted of committing a felony. It's part of his sentence.
He knows this when he commits the felony so when he decides to do it, he knowingly understands he is giving up his legal right to own a firearm. No one took it from him, he gave it up voluntarily. He carries that cross for his own actions.
Seriously? You know better than what you wrote
"If he wants a lawyer and cannot afford one, one will be appointed to him".
He has a way for legal counsel. Everything else you wrote is nothing but double speak.
Lastly, The government did not take anyone's right to own a gun. It is given up by the person convicted of committing a felony. It's part of his sentence.
He knows this when he commits the felony so when he decides to do it, he knowingly understands he is giving up his legal right to own a firearm. No one took it from him, he gave it up voluntarily. He carries that cross for his own actions.
The subject of an ERPO hasn't necessarily been charged with/committed a felony.
Might want to do some reading.
It’s an order granted based on the possibility of future action. It’s basically ‘Future Crime’, just without the weird telepathic brings in the swimming pools.
Last edited:
That is so cute.
I am sure that you also find laws where pedophiles and child rapists that were just released from prisons and they have to register and are prohibited from play grounds, too harsh, stupid and unconstitutional.
As long as they don't come near your family, daughter or grand daughter, right ?
Zendude
Member
Confiscating a firearm or prohibiting one from owning a firearm implies that the individual high probability of committing a murder. If such is the case, why is the focus on a gun rather than immediate incarceration?
larryh1108
Member
Well, the part about the felonies had nothing to do with the ERPO. I addressed that first.
Sorry to confuse you. It was directed at the side conversation about felons getting their guns back. I specifically stated someone convicted of a felony.
WestKentucky
Member
That last part is the rub. “Society” being the general population in concensus agrees that these groups are morally flawed, but where does “and the like” end?
Ethnically proud (any ethnicity)
Christian, Muslim, Buddhist (any faith)
Ex Husband/Wife/Boyfriend/Girlfriend
Any minority group can be viewed as offensive/dangerous
“Society” is also hyperaggressive in attaching labels. So each group quickly gets a label, an associated connotation, and a stereotype. Then once a set of labels is created then individuals without a label are naturally sorted out and labeled based upon what they do and where they go, and who they do/go with. Society is broken, and society is pushing this mess because of a lot of fearmongering and fear of the unknown. By attaching a label, society can predict, and therefore society gets a warm and fuzzy feeling because Society now knows something and can predict something. Because “that guy”s name is “minority” sounding he is part of “group” and they are “ok/scary/wierd/smelly/whatever” and that group does “XYZ”. I can relate to this because
My name is regionally not a name common among caucasians, and is associated with another race. I have shown up to interviews for jobs and found people with disappointment in that I am not a minority, but I have also found people relieved to not be burdened by dealing with someone they perceive as someone different. Because my name is regionally more popular with people of African descent, that makes people categorize me, and expect certain things when in reality I’m just a guy, like anyone else.
I have rambled far too long, but the point is that we naturally want to group things, and often times groupings are arbitrary. A particular person of an extremist group may very well believe and behave in a manner consistent with the rest of the group, but when it boils down to the nitty gritty people are either ******** or not. The guy in this news story made it pretty clear he is. So the question now lies with how we react to that, do we Judge Dredd it and make a pre-emptive strike and assume he was going to act like an *******, or do we respect his rights and hope that he changes his mind about performing said acts. Either way people are being hurt. Take your pick on who.
JTHunter
Member
It mainly boils down to "costs". The cost of the prison, of the guards, medical costs, food, etc. It is so much cheaper to take the firearm away and lock it up.
bdickens
Member
Probably because search warrants are supposed to require probable cause. That would be probable cause to suspect an actual crime..
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
