User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 12:38:03 PM EDT
[#1]
He needs a Tittle 1983 law suit..if a jury finds her guilty..she is fired. The town pays money. I hate the way ICAP and other chief's organizations claim to reperesent Law Enforcement.
We sued our Chief, after he 'suddenly retired'...won againt him for violating our 1st Ammendment rights..He got a job as Chief in another department..lasted 6 hours when the Freeholders got blasted by the lawsuits he caused and he suddenly left again... He was given a clean bill of Health for the Hire...the investigator was a retired fellow Chief....who was told they would not pay his fee, as he did not do his job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 12:39:00 PM EDT
[#2]
man that s fudged up
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 12:40:52 PM EDT
[#3]
I've forwarded your reponse to authorities. You will soon be protected from yourself and your property siezed for "safekeeping". Don't worry though, it's all for your own good. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 12:41:11 PM EDT
[#4]
This is complete bullshit, the dude did nothing wrong, and wants his guns back. I'm willing to bet some money that the police will log EVERY gun make, model, serial number, amount of ammo, magazines etc that they will be transferring over to him.
Upon doing that, they have an informal registry, and they know every type of weapon he has. Sorry, I'd have called a lawyer and not signed a damn thing either. These police departments need to stop overstepping their boundaries. It is ridiculous. If he has never done anything to bar himself from legally owning or possessing a firearm, there is no reason for the police to require any signature on a form asking these questions, and not to mention, these questions are more radically intrusive than what is already on a 4473. Another wronged citizen 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 12:41:18 PM EDT
[#5]
If all he has to do to get his property back is sign a paper then he needs to inkstick up. It seems from reading the initial post the man needs to pick his battles a little better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 12:51:10 PM EDT
[#6]
No, he has to sign the paper IN ADDITION to answering a bunch of intrusive questions...the form he must fill out is called "Application for the Return of Firearms" well, if he did nothing wrong, wasn't arrested, wasn't charged, why would he need to APPLY to get his property back...note they didn't return anything...including ammo, books, or optics. I hope he gets every indivdual involved fired.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 12:52:34 PM EDT
[#7]
Just wait, they'll deem just having over "X" amout of guns a mental dissorder grounds for confiscation: "He has 41 guns, nobody needs that many guns, he must be CRAZY"
you can almost hear it |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 12:53:54 PM EDT
[#8]
A friend of Gaithersburg Police Chief Mary Ann Viverette told me she was suicidal.
Hope she enjoys the abuse of her rights. Really, if that's all it takes to get to be able to search someone's property that thoroughly I think the Police have come up with a surefire way to just skip the judge and search warrant. and start a nice pawn shop.....  OTOH I think there's some information missing so I'll withhold judgement on this except to say that when the guy moved the incentive to treat him right was lost and it became easier to abuse someone from another state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:05:49 PM EDT
[#9]
Now see, this case is exactly why you scatter your guns around. Leave some in your cabin, a couple in the attic, maybe bury one in the yard, etc.
And how did the cops get into his safe without destroying it? I KNOW that if this happened to me there'd be no fucking WAY they'd get the combination to my safe out of me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:06:21 PM EDT
[#10]
You've always had to sue to get confiscated guns (and other property) back. Thank the "war on drugs" for that...
 Fifth Amendment? What Fifth Amendment?—Dan |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:22:45 PM EDT
[#11]
They don't need one to seize the weapons of a person who is a danger to themselves or others and is being held for mental eval. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:33:13 PM EDT
[#12]
lets hope |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:33:33 PM EDT
[#13]
Back in the '80s Chicago PD did something similar to my FIL's guns after he was murdered. Except they never offered to return them. First the Chicago PD told the MIL to get lost and actually threatened her with arrest when she kept asking about them. They then later claimed they were "destroyed". More likely handed out as rewards to cronies and friends.
No justification was ever given for the seizure and warrantless entry into his house. Neither of them have/had a criminal record. MIL was not a wealthy woman, and the sale of FIL's collection would have done a lot to help cover his debts. Instead she was screwed over by a bunch of badge-wearing thieves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:34:41 PM EDT
[#14]
I'm surprised that the cops/local gov't in one of these occupied states hasn't yet fucked with the wrong guy. Someone who would systematically take them out one by one. There ARE people that take this kind of bullshit much more seriously than this guy, and who wouldn't wait for the results of a lawsuit. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:35:55 PM EDT
[#15]
+1 Small town popo tend to either dig in like all hell, or roll over and play dead if the feds get involved. Course, if/when they dig in, they usually don't win. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:43:23 PM EDT
[#16]
Well, the person I was responding to kept talking about the judge that issued the warrant. There wasn't one. This person was never proven to be a danger to himself or others. It was a wild goose chase. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:47:31 PM EDT
[#17]
No, he was describing what the procedure is in his area: "Nope, a little more involved than that. He has to be evaluated to be involuntarily commited. There is also a hearing before the judge. (the same one that would order the guns seized) there would also be continuing evaluations/court hearings during his stay in whatever facility he went to. Usually in 30 day increments. A complaint would certainly start the process though." Those of you who condemn this incident because of a neighbor or relatives report don't understand just how many calls for service are prompted by reports from third parties. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:49:26 PM EDT
[#18]
They had no LEGAL right to take the guns, they have no LEGAL right to keep the guns. They're only doing it because they are bigger than he is. I would not doubt that some of those 41 guns have vanised from the evidence room and that the rest are quitely rusting away. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:54:33 PM EDT
[#19]
I'm sure he was in great danger from those optics and books. Someday they'll drive someone to "carl drega" type action. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:55:12 PM EDT
[#20]
I don't intend to ever find out either. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:55:45 PM EDT
[#21]
Johninaustin, Johninaustin, Johninaustin. OH Johnin austin . Austin being the operative word here. What I find ironic is this "suicidal" individual could very well have wound up dead if one of these stormtroopers didn't like the way he reacted. I'd like more details on the "concerned" acquaintance. What was the situation that lead to this report? Is there no possible case for damages against that individual? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:57:06 PM EDT
[#22]
looks like they probably knew the politics of the guy, considered him an enemy, and had their way with him because of that. JBTs suck. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 1:58:04 PM EDT
[#23]
and we all know, removing guns from someone is a surefire way to keep him from killing himself.
knives and car crashes would never work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:00:56 PM EDT
[#24]
There was no judge involved. I don't care how it is done in his area, this did not happen his area. It appears that he was detained and his firearms confiscated without a judge ever being involved. None of what you describe was done. I guess you think what happened is just fine, huh. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:05:09 PM EDT
[#25]
The cops all split up his weapons, some were probably sold off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:09:08 PM EDT
[#26]
We understand that it did not happen in Johns area. John was describing what is the procedure in his area and the general concept that officers routinely seize firearms from people who they believe are an imminent harm to themselves or others. John was also describing that for the weapons to be permanently retained, the case has to go in front of a judge. He is not claiming anything else. I agree with the temporary seizure of the weapons based on the initial report of him being a harm to himself or others. Usually it doesn't drag on as long as it has in this case. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:17:51 PM EDT
[#27]
and his mother-in-law's. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:22:03 PM EDT
[#28]
A little more involved than that. Yes, someone can report your behavior. The officers then respond and decide if the person is in fact displaying some behavior that indicates they are a harm to themselves or others.The only time the officers aren't going to be making that choice is if soemone else in their official capacity has already signed the appropriate paperwork about the persons mental condition. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:22:57 PM EDT
[#29]
Does anybody know the fate of his dog?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:33:11 PM EDT
[#30]
I know why you don't trust cops, because your not willing to seperate the "wheat from the chalf", so to speak. Just because one agency or even one or two cops do the wrong things for the wrong reasons, does not mean all cops are bad anymore than all doctors are bad or all gun owners are bad. Some agencies just don't get the same training as other agencies and suffer from crap like this. There are even some agencies with really great training and really stupid officers. \ A good example is the City of San Fransisco is now testing for Lt. positions wherein they gave a written and oral test. The test results are not worth much as the new female Chinese police chief wants racial diversity in favor of someone who knows how to do the job. If your a hispanic female in records and don't know shit from shinola about the streets or special operations, you will be promoted above the person who actually knows the difference. And simply because of the color of their skin. It is embarrassing to professional Peace Officers everywhere. Please don't lump all police officers into any one particular catagory becuase one agency does not have enough sense to know the law or how to interpret it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:33:56 PM EDT
[#31]
Oh, you agree. There were no initial reports, there was only a tip by an "acquaintance". Nothing usual about this whole BS. Read through the entire thread. Sounds like politics involved. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:36:53 PM EDT
[#32]
I hope he wins his suit and the crappy city has to change their name to "The City of Mora"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:40:34 PM EDT
[#33]
Hmmm. I suspect that the real reason for this fight is that he would have to answer "yes" to one or more of those questions, in which case he might not get his guns back.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:43:27 PM EDT
[#34]
The "tip" IS the initial report. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:49:23 PM EDT
[#35]
Stupid question, but if the police are taking him in to custody why do they even need to confiscate his guns in the first place?
He's in custody and can't use them. If he goes for a temporary committment and the judge determines he should not be committed then the police have absolutely no reason to keep his guns anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:50:36 PM EDT
[#36]
And the form probably includes a list of every serial # from each gun. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:55:11 PM EDT
[#37]
Man, talk about making assumptions and jumping to conclusions.... Remarkable, the way you aggressively twist the information and fill in the gaps with speculation and pure fiction. Then you attack the victim. You need therapy, not authority. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 2:56:32 PM EDT
[#38]
How exactly is he assuming or twisting anything? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 3:00:15 PM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 3:09:54 PM EDT
[#40]
From the information given in the articles, all he has to do is fill out the "APPLICATION", and he gets his stuff back! OR they rubberstamp
APPLICATION DENIED!!! On his form and he is screwed! He shouldn't have to Apply to get his own property back!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 3:10:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Give me a break. You guys are all twisting and spinning trying to justify this bullshit. A tip and a confirmed report are not hardly the same. So, someone could give your department a "tip" that you are suicidal and they would do all this to you? And you would be okay with it? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 3:10:58 PM EDT
[#42]
What suicide threat? Show me a suicide threat. There isn't any information on whoever fingered him as a risk. There is no mention of a suicide threat. It's purely speculation.
This is a very negative question. The guy didn't wait three years, he sued after three years. Johnaustin intoduced the idea of him being institutionalized all by himself. Pure speculation. There was no mention of it in the article. ETA: It's obvious that Johnaustin assumes the police were justified in doing this, and are justified in demanding that he APPLY to get his weapons back. He is trying to create a set of circumstances to validate his beliefs with speculation designed to put the victim in a bad light. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 3:12:05 PM EDT
[#43]
He has stated a lot of things that are not in this report............that is how he is assuming and twisting things. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 3:23:04 PM EDT
[#44]
THey called SWAT on me. Because I have guns..... So ya, they do draw down on you....
What if the cops can't find the serial numbers on the guns, like my 870, 2 1911's, Colt 1903, AK, and S&W 36, or AR? The only one they could find was on my Glock, and it isn't hard to find them on the other guns.... Getting them back wasn't 'hard' just involved, because the firearms were not where they were supposed to be, and then they tried to keep my ammo. That didn't fly...... ANd in my particular case, there was no report, no paperwork other than property reciepts, and they didn't even fill those out right..... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 3:30:32 PM EDT
[#45]
Huh, Gaithersburg. A cesspool of socialism in a raging ocean of communism known as Montgomery County. Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, soccer moms, whacko-Kerry voters, and "conservative" Republicans who don't care about any conservative issue besides taxes. No way this guy is gonna get his guns back. Maryland is.....beyond description. What an injustice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 3:37:57 PM EDT
[#46]
That's because, usually, the person is a good little subject and applies to get their property back without so much as a whimper. Unfortunately for the JBTs in this case they ran into a citizen who is aware of his God-given rights. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 3:40:30 PM EDT
[#47]
I went to the police academy in Missouri and we were never taught to do a mental evaluation interview at the point of a gun. It's kinda hard to properly judge a person's mental state when they are literally "under the gun." So they didn't interview him to determine if he was in fact a mental case, and they didn't have a judge's order. So what do we have here? Oh yeah, a violation of the man's 4th, 5th and 2nd amendment rights by nanny-state JBTs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 4:11:42 PM EDT
[#48]
I wasn't commenting on the drawn gun part, but I have to believe that if the officers felt the need to draw their firearm, it was for good reason that is not detailed in the report. On THAT issue, its funny how some people here take some reports at faith and think any pertinent details are included, and then others they don't trust the mainstream media at all........ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 4:15:38 PM EDT
[#49]
Who knows why that person thought he was a suicidal risk? Its not in the article. Its up to the responding officers to determine if the initial report has any validity.
They ARE justified in the original seizure. The issue is the long-term retention of the firearms . Do not debate whether the officers were justified in their original seizure; they are. Keep to the issue as to the time frame involved. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2005 4:25:06 PM EDT
[#50]
Oh good grief. How do you know that person who provided the "tip" didn't have some personal axe to grind? None of what you say has been borne out in either quoted article. You are correct in debating about whether the officers were justified, because they weren't, no matter how much you and john try to make it so. This is total bullshit from the get go. You never answered if they would be justified to do the same thing to you based on a bullshit "tip". |
|||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
