Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

sheriff keeps deputy's guns

Discussion in 'Legal' started by jke456, Oct 20, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jke456

    jke456 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2004
    Messages:
    86
    Location:
    IUKA ILLINOIS
    sherriff keeps deputies guns

    http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbc...041019/NEWS02/41019008&SearchID=7318742468744

    still married after she asked that my guns be givin to the police......I think not..............
     
  2. tc300mag1

    tc300mag1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,913
    Location:
    Wayne, Mi
    I think swapping her to sheriff for (her safety of course) for the guns would be a good trade but i think i would already be a single man if it was me
     
  3. feedthehogs

    feedthehogs Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,801
    While the story is vague, ya all are blaming the wife.

    What if this deputy had beaten the crap out his wife?

    Reserve judgement till all the facts are in.
     
  4. 41mag

    41mag Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,021
    Location:
    western mi
    Well,maybe hid did beat the crap out of her.What does that have to do with anything?Were all the baseball bats/golfclubs/pots/pans/& kitchen knives also turned over to the sherriff?Guns are expensive property I'd want mine back too.
     
  5. HankB

    HankB Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2003
    Messages:
    5,230
    Location:
    Central Texas
    If that were the case, wouldn't the deputy be in jail?

    Or better yet, if he did beat the crap out of her, his WIFE should be given a gun . . . and trained in its use.
     
  6. Tory

    Tory member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    911
    Clueless

    "Well,maybe hid [sic] did beat the crap out of her.What does that have to do with anything?"

    Well, maybe it has to do with the fact that violent people should not be given access to concealable deadly weapons. It might be based in the rational premise that prevention is better than cure, and that the temporary (if allegations are proven unfounded) loss of property is better that the permanent loss of innocent life.

    Or are you going to next claim that property is more important? :rolleyes:
     
  7. geekWithA.45

    geekWithA.45 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    9,056
    Location:
    SouthEast PA
    Not sure about the laws in place in that jurisdiction, but in general, there are procedures to follow. AFAIK, "suspicion of domestic violence" does not cross the threshold of lawful confiscation in most jurisdictions.

    The article gives the appearance that the wife said "take his guns", and the sherrif said, "OK, I'll ask", and the deputy said "sure".

    The article did NOT indicate any of the following normal and lawful conditions for gun confiscation:

    -An arrest and indictment on a domestic violence.
    -A conviction on domestic violence
    -A restraining order pursuant to domestic violence.

    I'm not aware of any law anywhere that give the Sherriff the sole discretion on gun ownership, dependent on the outcome of psych testing.

    (Although this situation may be exceptional, based on the fact that the person in question is a subordinate LEO. The sherrif _may_ have the right to access psych reports in order to determine fitness for duty, but that's an unrelated issue)
     
  8. Beren

    Beren Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    2,388
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I'm sure the wife will be very comforted to know that all the "concealable deadly weapons" are gone when she has a steak knife sticking out of her chest, or when her skull is cracked in two by a golf club.

    Just how "concealable" is a rifle, anyway?
     
  9. Jax

    Jax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    100
    Location:
    30.30N 97.70W, 31.14N 121.80E, 52.30N 4.76E
    Why are there no laws about violent people having access to knives then? They are also concealable and deadly. Where do you stop?

    Personally, I think it has more to do with the legal concepts of "innocent until proven guilty" and "prior restraint".

    However rational your premise is, you may not step on someone else's rights to prevent something that may happen.

    The same logic is used by the antis. What's more reasonable than banning all firearms to prevent gun violence?

    No, of course not. However, civil rights most certainly are - and that is what you propose treading upon.

    Jax
     
  10. 41mag

    41mag Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,021
    Location:
    western mi
    Exactly.

    & I apologize for the punnish spelling error.:scrutiny:
     
  11. flatrock

    flatrock Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    612
    Maybe you should think things through before calling someone else clueless.

    The deputy hasn't been convicted of anything that prevents him from owning firearms. He can go to Wal-mart and pick up a new rifle or shotgun if he so chooses.

    Confiscating the guns he leagally owns does not prevent him from rearming himself, because he hasn't been convicted of anything that would prevent him from legally owning a firearm.

    This deputy obviously needs to become single, and the sheriff need to return his property.

    This is based on the apparent fact that the deputy was not charged with domestic abuse.
     
  12. Shield529

    Shield529 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Location:
    Arkansas
    It would seem the Sheriff is holding the guns as a condition of employment along with the counseling and Psyic. eval. If this is legal I have no idea but it sound like its occuring.
     
  13. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    So would you or I be allowed to just hand over the key to our collection and leave the house or would us serfs be face down in the front yard with a cop's knee in our back while his buddies ransacked the house? :scrutiny:

    IIt sounds to me like the Sheriff intends to return the firearms if he sees the results of the psych evaluation and counseling. Sounds reasonable to me.

    I agree the deputy should become single at the earliest convenience ... if he did beat her then for her sake, if he didn't then for his own sake.

    Jurisdiction doesn't matter, the law preventing those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence are federal ... confiscation of firearms is just par for the course during one of these domestic situations.
     
  14. atek3

    atek3 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Messages:
    3,024
    Location:
    SW CT
    Glad we have some people on this board for sensible gun violence prevention measures. BTW wasn't it the tories that banned handguns in england after dunblaine? Good work.

    atek3
     
  15. Tory

    Tory member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    911
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

    "...the law preventing those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence are [sic] federal ... confiscation of firearms is just par for the course during one of these domestic situations."

    Well, someone else has grasped the obvious. Note also that issuance of a restraining order or charge of domestic violence will also constitute grounds for seizure, pending resolution.

    As for those attempting to extrapolate this into a condemnation of blanket anti-gun seizure/denial policies, you've missed the point. This is NOT a general ban based upon mere speculation of what someone MIGHT do at SOME point in time. It is a reaction to a specific charge against a specific person based upon one specific complaint.

    Which do you think looks worse: A temporary loss pending resolution of the charge, or another pyscho killing his significant other with a gun? :fire:

    Try to think more than 10 seconds ahead........ :rolleyes:
     
  16. 41mag

    41mag Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,021
    Location:
    western mi
    The point being that there is nothing to stop the deputy[& now he's a psycho?:confused:] from using either a newly purchased firearm or something else entirely to scare/harm/kill his wife.


    Uhh,right.:rolleyes:
     
  17. jefnvk

    jefnvk Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,938
    Location:
    The Copper Country, Michigan
    If he's not in jail, and back home living with his wife (or at least seeing her), it doesn;t seem that there should be any reason not to give tehm back.
     
  18. rock jock

    rock jock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    In the moment
    What a moron. I hate it when I hear something like this from antis. Explain to me how exactly having a hundred guns makes you more of a threat than having one.
     
  19. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,957
    Location:
    Nevada, escaped from the PDRK via Idaho.
    So do most sheriff's departments.

    Pilgrim
     
  20. 41mag

    41mag Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Messages:
    1,021
    Location:
    western mi
    What gets me about that comment is that it's coming from the deputies' boss.It almost leads me to believe that the Sherriff is trying to distance his own self from his deputy.I'm only vagely curious as to why.Irregardless,there's going to be more to this story,I'm sure.
     
  21. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    4,849
    You claim this was a specific statement related to a specific case. If so, why did you speak in such sweeping terms? Why did you use trigger words like concealable deadly weapons?

    If you agree that violent people should not have access to weapons, then you should agree with a blanket prohibition. Everyone has the potential to be violent, so all weapons should be confiscated until it can be proven that the individual in question will not be violent. I mean, prevention is better than cure, correct?

    Yes, I did think 10 seconds ahead. I also thought about the logical conclusion of your statement.

    By the way, it's not a question of being "given access to concealable deadly weapons." No one can give me access to such items. I'm guaranteed access via the right to self-defense, as recognized by the Constitution. So we have a violation of property rights, combined with an interference in a Constitutional right, all for the sake of "prevention."
     
  22. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    :scrutiny:

    All it took was one guy with a single baby browning to start WWI, so what's your point Sheriff?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page