Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Posted: 6/29/2002 6:56:32 AM EDT
[url]http://www.bergen.com/page.php?level_3_id=59&page=4107220[/url]
The Wayne Police Department had the right to revoke a township man's firearms ID card and seize his weapons even though he had never run afoul of the law with his guns, according to an appellate court ruling handed up Thursday. Four DWI convictions over the past 20 years proved to be a problem for Thomas Whitney, the court ruling said. "I don't go drinking with a gun. I use them for sport," said Whitney, 43, who works in construction. He said he is a National Rifle Association member and an avid hunter. "All my guns are locked up, and no one has the keys but me." The case began Jan. 18, 2000, when Wayne police investigated Thomas Whitney's brother Timothy for a domestic violence complaint, said Dante Mongiardo, Passaic County chief assistant prosecutor. The brothers lived together, and police found nineteen shotguns and rifles in their home. Whitney estimated the guns were worth $10,000. Because of the domestic violence complaint, the guns were seized, but police later learned they did not belong to Timothy Whitney, and therefore were not subject to forfeiture. "When our office was reviewing the return of the weapons, they discovered that [Thomas Whitney] had a series of DWI convictions," Mongiardo said. The court ruling said Whitney had DWI convictions in 1981, 1982, 1986, and 2000. Whitney said he was fined for the crimes and admitted he had made mistakes. The Prosecutor's Office argued to a state judge that Whitney should lose his guns and his firearms purchaser ID card, which he had held since 1976. The ID card is needed to buy rifles or long guns. State Superior Court Judge Donald Reenstra agreed in a May 8, 2001, ruling that said that Whitney was a "habitual drunkard," a factor that under case law can revoke the right to a firearms ID card. Thursday's appellate court ruling upholds Reenstra's decision, saying "the potential for misuse of the weapons by [Whitney] while under the influence of alcohol is sufficient to deny [him] the right to purchase or possess a firearm." Judge Reenstra and the appellate court both noted that state law provides that a firearms ID card shall not be granted to someone "where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare." Whitney said he would like to appeal. "They had no reason to come here and take my stuff," he said. "It had nothing to do with me." Whitney's attorney could not be reached for comment. The court ruling noted that lawyer Robert Cherry argued before Reenstra that the gun seizure and revocation of the ID card were improper because his client had never used a gun in an improper manner. Cherry argued on appeal that the state judge improperly classified his client as a "habitual drunkard," the ruling stated. If the appellate ruling stands, Mongiardo said, the state will probably sell the guns and give Whitney the money. "I'm not sure if one DWI would automatically disqualify you, but here you had four over a period of 20 years," Mongiardo said. "It showed that there was a pattern of some kind - this wasn't just someone who had a few drinks when he was 18 and never had a problem again."
View Quote
What second amendment? What a fucking joke.
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 7:07:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 7:08:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 7:11:35 AM EDT
What is the name of that movie coming out soon, where a person is arrested for crimes they may commit in the future ?????
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 7:13:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2002 7:13:46 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
[red]Four DWI convictions over the past 20 years[/red] proved to be a problem for Thomas Whitney, the court ruling said. The case began Jan. 18, 2000, when Wayne police investigated Thomas Whitney's brother Timothy for a [red]domestic violence complaint[/red], said Dante Mongiardo, Passaic County chief assistant prosecutor. The brothers lived together, and police found nineteen shotguns and rifles in their home. Whitney estimated the guns were worth $10,000. [red]Because of the domestic violence complaint, the guns were seized,[/red] but police later learned they did not belong to Timothy Whitney, and therefore were not subject to forfeiture. "When our office was reviewing the return of the weapons, they discovered that [Thomas Whitney] had a series of DWI convictions," Mongiardo said. The court ruling said Whitney had DWI convictions in 1981, 1982, 1986, and 2000. Whitney said he was fined for the crimes and admitted he had made mistakes. The Prosecutor's Office argued to a state judge that Whitney should lose his guns and his firearms purchaser ID card, which he had held since 1976. The ID card is needed to buy rifles or long guns. State Superior Court Judge Donald Reenstra agreed in a May 8, 2001, ruling that said that [red]Whitney was a "habitual drunkard," a factor that under case law can revoke the right to a firearms ID card.[/red] Thursday's appellate court ruling upholds Reenstra's decision, saying [red]"the potential for misuse of the weapons by [Whitney] while under the influence of alcohol is sufficient to deny [him] the right to purchase or possess a firearm."[/red]
View Quote
[b]EVERYONE'S GUNS HAVE ALREADY BEEN BANNED!! They're just taking their time rounding them up.[/b] Eventually you'll break one of their Draconian laws and the Feds will knock on your door and cart off your guns because you got in a bar fight 20yrs ago or because you called a mugger a "ni@@er" once or because you got a DUI 20yrs ago. [b]Incremental gun confiscation is already underway. House-by-house, slowly but surely, one gun-owner at at time.[/b]
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 7:17:58 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 7:19:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 7:25:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: [b]EVERYONE'S GUNS HAVE ALREADY BEEN BANNED!! They're just taking their time rounding them up.[/b] Eventually you'll break one of their Draconian laws and the Feds will knock on your door and cart off your guns because you got in a bar fight 20yrs ago or because you called a mugger a "ni@@er" once or because you got a DUI 20yrs ago. [b]Incremental gun confiscation is already underway. House-by-house, slowly but surely, one gun-owner at at time.[/b]
View Quote
Soon it will be if you have received a lot of speeding tickets, it will be used to show that you are at a higher risk of breaking the law and that you are then a threat with you gun.
View Quote
The cops won't have any problem collecting the guns either, since everyone they're targeting will be a "law breaker".
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 7:26:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: [b]EVERYONE'S GUNS HAVE ALREADY BEEN BANNED!! They're just taking their time rounding them up.[/b] Eventually you'll break one of their Draconian laws and the Feds will knock on your door and cart off your guns because you got in a bar fight 20yrs ago or because you called a mugger a "ni@@er" once or because you got a DUI 20yrs ago. [b]Incremental gun confiscation is already underway. House-by-house, slowly but surely, one gun-owner at at time.[/b]
View Quote
Soon it will be if you have received a lot of speeding tickets, it will be used to show that you are at a higher risk of breaking the law and that you are then a threat with you gun.
View Quote
I'm just waiting for them to use my grocery buying receipts someday to show that I happen to buy X amount of beer each week - which shows I drink too much and so... "Away with his guns!!"
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 7:28:11 AM EDT
This is a great example of the government being out of control. First I agree with Paul. This idiot is not the sharpest crayon in the box. He is probably going to kill himself and someone else with his stupid drinking and driving. He deserves to have the law come down hard on him for DWI. However, having said that, I do not like the government being able to take our guns because of "the potential of misuse". We are all at risk for that. What burden of proof will we have to come up with to prove that we will not misuse a firearm? The DWI had noting to do with his firearms, yet the government used it as an excuse to confiscate his property and reduce his right to defend himself. Will we all have the potential for misuse if get any traffic ticket? How about being fined by the IRS? How about having children in the house? How about having the guns in the first place?
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 7:33:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 7:40:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/29/2002 7:41:37 AM EDT by JasonF]
Personally, I think revoking the guys (anyones) permit and seizing his firearms based on any DUI convictions is BS. Anyhow, and I didn't see it mentioned in the article, it's reasonably certain that a 4th DUI conviction probably carries more than a two year sentence. It wouldn't surprise me if the courts in more than half the states can impose a sentence greater than two years or more for a second or even first offense. Under federal law anyone convicted of a misdemeanor where the person could have received a sentence of more than two years, is prohibited from owning firearms. I suppose if they really wanted to put the screws to the guy, they could have dug up a recent 4473 and have the feds charge him with perjury.
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 8:10:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Originally Posted By anti-gov-tinfoil-man: The cops won't have any problem collecting the guns either, since everyone they're targeting will be a "law breaker".
View Quote
I don't think you can blame the individual officers because they will more then likely be working on whatever info they have been briefed with. They will probably be told that a heavily armed carreer criminal(whatever there definition of criminal will be at the time) is in possession of illegal guns and they need to be confiscated.
View Quote
Exactly, except for the not blaming individual officers part.
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 8:43:13 AM EDT
VA-gunnut: "I don't think you can blame the individual officers because they will more then likely be working on whatever info they have been briefed with. They will probably be told that a heavily armed carreer criminal(whatever there definition of criminal will be at the time) is in possession of illegal guns and they need to be confiscated. " "Just following orders..." you know. That excuse didn't fly at Nuremburg & it still doesn't work. Act like a goose-stepping JBT & you get your place in the gallows line later.
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 8:46:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 8:47:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 8:53:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Originally Posted By RiffRandall: VA-gunnut: "I don't think you can blame the individual officers because they will more then likely be working on whatever info they have been briefed with. They will probably be told that a heavily armed carreer criminal(whatever there definition of criminal will be at the time) is in possession of illegal guns and they need to be confiscated. " "Just following orders..." you know. That excuse didn't fly at Nuremburg & it still doesn't work. Act like a goose-stepping JBT & you get your place in the gallows line later.
View Quote
I thought that is what I said in the original post I made:
I don't think you can blame the individual officers because they will more then likely be working on whatever info they have been briefed with. They will probably be told that a heavily armed carreer criminal(whatever there definition of criminal will be at the time) is in possession of illegal guns and they need to be confiscated.
View Quote
View Quote
So they will know what the crime is right? "We're going in to get this dirty alcoholic's guns". They should be able to judge whether or not those laws are fucked up. If they're never told what the law that was broken is, then they should be suspicious of the motivations of their employer. In either case, individuals should be responsible for their actions. It's up to the cop to make sure he's not enforcing tyrranical laws.
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 9:00:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 9:02:02 AM EDT
If you allow guilt by association and inferences by deminor then we are all guilty of something. Is that reason enough to disarm people. The firearms were illegally seized adn the prosecutor decided that he didn't want to give them back. The corrupt Illinois power structure decided that it was better to let criminals have guns than lawfull folks. While 4 DUIs in 20 yearws is sufficent to revoke a drivers liscense, It's not good enough to revoke a persons CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Since there was never a charge of FELONY DUI he is not a convicted felon and is entitled to his rights, including voteing and owning firearms. Especially so, with a 14 year period between infractions. This a heinous misuse of state power and should be stopped.[frag]
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 9:06:01 AM EDT
if i were the judge in this case. i would have made and order that this clown stay sober for 2 years ,go into a drug rehab program. then said firearms would be returned. but on the other hand the gun should never have be taken in the first place.THIS GUY IS A DRUNK and we as gun owners have to be tough on our sport or the powers that be ,the millions of sheep that listen to the anti gun press will take our rights away. and we will let em as we have done in my state. .live free or die.
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 9:15:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Originally Posted By anti-gov-tinfoil-man: Exactly, except for the not blaming individual officers part.
View Quote
Blaming the individual officers would be wrong in my opinion....... these guys are just going to be doing there job. Please don't give me any of this anti "they were just following orders" arguments either because the propaganda machine will have them believing in the cause of the day. These poor sap who has to kick in your door will be just earning a paycheck. Yes there will be the jack-asses that will enjoy what they are doing but for the most part these guys just perform a job.
View Quote
OHh, I see, you mean that if you take an oath, and wear a uniform, then you are NOT accountable for your actions, because you are "just earning a pay check". You mean you will sell out your fellow citizens, and your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution for "a pay check". Silly me, I thought there was such a thing as "integrity"... You mean if these folks can't see through the "propaganda machine" then they are excused. The German war criminals and people after ww2 already tried that one....
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 9:38:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 9:51:51 AM EDT
Most importantly to us...will the NRA step in to provide assistance to this guy. Creep or no creep, they should definitely be making a stand here.
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 9:54:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut:
Originally Posted By liberty86: OHh, I see, you mean that if you take an oath, and wear a uniform, then you are NOT accountable for your actions, because you are "just earning a pay check". You mean you will sell out your fellow citizens, and your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution for "a pay check". Silly me, I thought there was such a thing as "integrity"... You mean if these folks can't see through the "propaganda machine" then they are excused. The German war criminals and people after ww2 already tried that one....
View Quote
First of all most people can't see the propaganda. Why do you think there are so many gun owners who will look down on you for owning a Black Rifle, or gun owners that say we shouldn't have machine guns, or who needs to carry a gun concealed. Unfortunately the Constitution only means what the majority thinks it means. If the majority thinks it means something else then you, well guess what you will have the wrong opinion. Your Nazi analogy doesn't work because you are basing it on the fact that we won the war. If the Nazis had won then the guys running the camps would of been heroes in Germany. The same would hold true here, if lets say there was a revolution because of all out gun confiscation. If the pro-gun side won then the government people would be considered criminals and traitors to the pro-gun cause. If the pro-gun side were to loose you would then be branded a terrorist and a traitor to your country. It comes down to who gets to write the story in the end.
View Quote
You are right about who gets to write history, but wrong about the responsibility thing. Ignorance is no excuse, (try it in front of a judge sometime). We are all accountable for our actions, and what we choose to do, (or not do), for a living. The Constitution does not mean what the majority,(or the scotus), say's it means, but means what the founders intended. Their intentions can be found in their writings at the time, and a basic understanding of the english language. The fact that some cannot see the propaganda does not excuse them from knowing the truth. The fact that a JBT at the door did not read or understand the Constitution, when taking the oath, is no excuse. If an dis-armed man is a slave, (he is), then those who are prepared to use force to dis-arm him should know what they are doing,(it's THEIR responsibility!).....
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 10:09:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 1:45:54 PM EDT
It looks like he got those DUIs when he was young, got it together, and then got nailed again as an adult. That's unfortunate. A lot of it could just be bad luck. They started cracking down in the early 80's so maybe he was being a stubborn ass. Or maybe he really is a drunk, I don't know. In any case, the ruling is BS. If the guy was convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor of the class that bans firearms ownership, that's one thing. But to do it the way they did it is a joke. Once they start banning ownership for traffic offenses in which there are no injuries, I have a problem. Hell, soon it will be reckless driving (which everyone knows is a joke) and from there, who knows what.
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 3:36:23 PM EDT
Hehehe... What a wussy patch: (sorry JGH [:D] -- faces obscurated to protect the innocent) [img]rbad.ar15.com/wpd1.jpg[/img] [img]rbad.ar15.com/wpd2.jpg[/img] [img]rbad.ar15.com/wpd3.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 3:58:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut: Ignorance is no excuse, I am not talking about ignorance. I am talking about what the majority thinks is fact or law versus what another person thinks. If it is a common held belief that you shouldn't have a gun and the majority belief also says that the 2nd amendment doesn't protect your gun rights, you are then wrong under the eyes of the law and then a criminal. If the police think you are a criminal then you will have to obey or be willing to resist. If you resist then the police are going to respond accordingly, which is what they are trained to do in the first place. I think you get the point.
View Quote
You seem to think we live in a Democracy, not a Republic. Doesn't matter what the majority, or the police think. Those not willing to resist having their G*d given rights taken from them deserve their chains. Those who choose to try and take those same rights from their fellow Americans do so at their peril, and deserve whatever they may get...
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 4:07:23 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/29/2002 6:18:23 PM EDT
Top Top