sheriff keeps deputy's guns

[jke456]

sherriff keeps deputies guns

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

Deputy sues Sheriff Telb over confiscation of guns




Ronald Slough, Jr., a Lucas County deputy, is suing his boss, Sheriff James Telb, to regain possession of $40,000 worth of firearms confiscated from him this summer.

In a brief filed in Lucas County Common Pleas Court yesterday, Deputy Slough claimed he agreed to hand over the key to his gun collection and to leave his home when police asked him to, based on suspicion of domestic abuse.

He also was asked to surrender his duty weapon as the sheriff's office conducted an investigation in which they asked him to undergo counseling with his wife, the suit said. Deputy Slough claims in the suit he completed counseling and asked for the return of his gun collection and personal effects, some of which he said are family heirlooms. His attorney could not be reached for comment.

But Sheriff Telb contends he has not seen the results of the deputy's psychological evaluation and counseling.

"He has enough guns there to start a war. We were asked by his wife to take the arms for the safety of his home and family," Sheriff Telb said

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

 

[tc300mag1]

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

 

[feedthehogs]

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.

 

[41mag]

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.

 

[HankB]

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

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.

 

[Tory]

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?

 

[geekWithA.45]

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)

 

[Beren]

Well, maybe it has to do with the fact that violent people should not be given access to concealable deadly weapons

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?

 

[Jax]

Well, maybe it has to do with the fact that violent people should not be given access to concealable deadly weapons.

Why are there no laws about violent people having access to knives then? They are also concealable and deadly. Where do you stop?

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.

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?

Or are you going to next claim that property is more important?

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

Jax

 

[41mag]

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.

Exactly.

& I apologize for the punnish spelling error.

 

[flatrock]

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?

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.

 

[Shield529]

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.

 

[Zundfolge]

Deputy Slough claimed he agreed to hand over the key to his gun collection and to leave his home when police asked him to, based on suspicion of domestic abuse.

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?

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.

Not sure about the laws in place in that jurisdiction

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.

 

[atek3]

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.

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

 

[Tory]

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?

Try to think more than 10 seconds ahead........

 

[41mag]

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

The point being that there is nothing to stop the deputy[& now he's a psycho?] from using either a newly purchased firearm or something else entirely to scare/harm/kill his wife.

Try to think more than 10 seconds ahead........

Uhh,right.

 

[jefnvk]

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.

 

[rock jock]

"He has enough guns there to start a war...." Sheriff Telb said

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.

 

[Pilgrim]

"He has enough guns there to start a war...." Sheriff Telb said

So do most sheriff's departments.

Pilgrim

 

[41mag]

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.

 

[buzz_knox]

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.

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."

 

[Zundfolge]

"He has enough guns there to start a war...." Sheriff Telb said

All it took was one guy with a single baby browning to start WWI, so what's your point Sheriff?