| Author | Post |
|---|
hotrod
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28th, 2009 04:44 pm |
|
superdemon wrote: hotrod wrote: You did not say he surrendered the weapon. That puts a different spin on it. The system used negotiation to come to a mutual conclusion. Give up your weapon, we will not charge. If the charge was dismissed without negotiation, and I was the party to the complaint, I would have retrieved my weapon via the courts. They would have to return it.
Dismissed without prejudice means the county prosecutor or commonwealth attorney can refile at a later time, that doesn't mean he can retain evidence. If that were so, they would charge anyone for anything, dismiss without prejudice and retain property without due process indefinitely
I love the conspiracy notion here.
It would take one hell of a plan to do that to obtain property like that. I am telling you that it happens. A lot. I'm usually in court about 6 days a month.
It happens.
It is legal.
It is not legal. Holding property without due process is a violation of the rights of the accused. The operative word is accused, not convicted. You may see a judge with hold property at the dismissal, possibly, but you do not see the outcome of the request to return property at a later date.
Six days a month in court, whether district or circuit, is not enough time to observe all the inner workings with in the due process procedure. Spend 4 days a week for 20 years and get back to me.
|
intellavore
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 28th, 2009 10:15 pm |
|
| What law did he break? His gun was covered? I don't see a crime there. If the Right (not privalage) to keep (own) and bear arms (carry on you) shall not (will not) be infringed (legislated or restricted) He did not commit a crime. Constitutionally speaking every American should ignore any and all gun laws as they are inherently Unconstitutional. You can argue all day long that we need those laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals but you and I both know that is an IDIOTS argument. The criminals will get a gun regardless of what law you try to impose. If more men had the testicular fortitude to stand up and tell the federal government to kiss our collective arses we wouldn't be having the problems we are having now. If a crazy man gets his hands on a gun and goes into a store and starts shooting there damn well needs to be armed citizens in that store to put a stop to it. But you keep letting the government do your thinking for you. Tell me how that works out for you.
|
Flyer22
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Mar 29th, 2009 01:21 am |
|
Intellavore, welcome to the site. I don't know how much you know about the finer points of constitutional law, but you should know that most of us try to be as precise and as accurate as possible.
You don't seem to quite grasp the fundamental difference between the national government and a state government. The U.S. Constitution, by and large, is a check upon the national government. The 2nd Amendment does not apply to state governments. If you want to try to make a constitutional argument, fine, but you've got to do it from the Kentucky Constitution.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 04:09 pm |
|
Well, how about this...
I was recently at a county Sheriff's department, and I saw a sign in the parking lot that said, "Skateboarding not permitted on county property. Skateboards will be confiscated and not returned."
If that was not legal, why would the Sheriff advertise that he was going to violate the Constitution? Would that not open him up to lawsuits?
|
hotrod
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 04:54 pm |
|
superdemon wrote: Well, how about this...
I was recently at a county Sheriff's department, and I saw a sign in the parking lot that said, "Skateboarding not permitted on county property. Skateboards will be confiscated and not returned."
If that was not legal, why would the Sheriff advertise that he was going to violate the Constitution? Would that not open him up to lawsuits?
Yes it would open him to lawsuit. If he confiscated without charging a crime. Without giving the accused a chance to defend in open court. Not giving the accused the ability to reclaim private property would be grounds for a lawsuit. If you were in Kentucky and the county sheriff has such a sign, he better have a county ordinance that does not allow skateboarding on public property or in designated areas. That also opens up the county for suit as well if he confiscates without due process. I can put a sign up at my home that says, "don't walk on the sidewalk or I will sue you". Doesn't mean I can do it.
|
Statesman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 05:01 pm |
|
superdemon wrote:
Thank you.
I am truly, truly one with the cause. I will admit that I give the other side of the coin in some debates, and I also attempt to foster a little free thought, but I am a brother in the cause.
I am a member of the Constitution Party . Check my profile, and look at the Pledge of Allegiance that I recite.
+1
I voted for Chuck Baldwin too. 
I cannot locate any original posts about this person, but it sounds like he made some errors in judgement, and/or has some bad choices of words. Maybe I am missing something (and I usually do), but I don't believe firing a gun in the air warrants a TT charge, unless you consider the air a victim.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 05:25 pm |
|
Statesman wrote: superdemon wrote:
Thank you.
I am truly, truly one with the cause. I will admit that I give the other side of the coin in some debates, and I also attempt to foster a little free thought, but I am a brother in the cause.
I am a member of the Constitution Party . Check my profile, and look at the Pledge of Allegiance that I recite.
+1
I voted for Chuck Baldwin too.
I cannot locate any original posts about this person, but it sounds like he made some errors in judgement, and/or has some bad choices of words. Maybe I am missing something (and I usually do), but I don't believe firing a gun in the air warrants a TT charge, unless you consider the air a victim.
Well, he said to the police dispatcher something to the effect of "Do I have to fire a shot in the air to get help?" Or something to that effect, AND told them he was carrying.
The original story was posted in a thread called "I WAS ARRESTED FOR OPEN CARRY", which he wasn't. His story has since fallen apart, and I have been working my arse off to show that he is not someone who needs our help, or shoul be held up as some sort of martyr of LEO harassment. He made some fundamentally stupid, stupid decisions, and we should be distancing ourselves from him.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 05:29 pm |
|
hotrod wrote: superdemon wrote: Well, how about this...
I was recently at a county Sheriff's department, and I saw a sign in the parking lot that said, "Skateboarding not permitted on county property. Skateboards will be confiscated and not returned."
If that was not legal, why would the Sheriff advertise that he was going to violate the Constitution? Would that not open him up to lawsuits?
Yes it would open him to lawsuit. If he confiscated without charging a crime. Without giving the accused a chance to defend in open court. Not giving the accused the ability to reclaim private property would be grounds for a lawsuit. If you were in Kentucky and the county sheriff has such a sign, he better have a county ordinance that does not allow skateboarding on public property or in designated areas. That also opens up the county for suit as well if he confiscates without due process. I can put a sign up at my home that says, "don't walk on the sidewalk or I will sue you". Doesn't mean I can do it.
The sdewalk is not your property.
Why would an LEO intentionally do something to bring more lawsuits onto the department? Really?
You can sue for just about anything, it doesn't mean you will win.
Let me give you yet another example of no due process...
When I worked at an auto parts store, and someone used a credit card that was bad, or way overdue, I would get a message that told me to either hold or destroy the card. Where is the due process in that?
You can talk Constitutional theory until you are blue in the face, but I am telling you what I have seen in action day after day for a decade.
It happens. I am not saying I agree with it, or support it, all I am sayig is that it happens.
Last edited on Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 05:31 pm by superdemon
|
Statesman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 05:37 pm |
|
superdemon wrote:
When I worked at an auto parts store, and someone used a credit card that was bad, or way overdue, I would get a message that told me to either hold or destroy the card. Where is the due process in that?
I got this one!! On the back of the cards, they say the cards are the property of the bank, therefore the bank can seize the cards anytime they wish, for any reason(s). No due process is needed since there is no confiscation of property.
Example:
"This card is the property of [insert bank name here] bank/credit union. It may be revoked by the [insert bank name here] without notice and shall be surrendered upon demand. "
I'm sure an agreement to "surrender" the property was also covered in the agreement signed by the account holder when he created the account.
Last edited on Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 05:39 pm by Statesman
|
PT111
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 05:41 pm |
|
I haven't followed this story but I find a couple of things strange.
Why was he calling 911 if he locked his keys in his car. Are the police in KY also locksmiths? To me that could be a frivilous call charge there unless there is something else going on. Then to mention the threat of shooting into the air if he didn't get action immediately is going to raise eyebrows anywhere.
Second did his clothing cover his gun? Someone said that in KY if the gun can be discerned below the clothing (printing) it is not concealed. The deal about "I was open carrying but my clothing just covered it" sounds funky to me.
I am sure there is more to this story than what I have read but it sure sounds shady from both sides and as some have said this may not be a poster boy for an OC protest march.
|
hotrod
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 06:34 pm |
|
Statesman wrote: superdemon wrote:
When I worked at an auto parts store, and someone used a credit card that was bad, or way overdue, I would get a message that told me to either hold or destroy the card. Where is the due process in that?
I got this one!! On the back of the cards, they say the cards are the property of the bank, therefore the bank can seize the cards anytime they wish, for any reason(s). No due process is needed since there is no confiscation of property.
Example:
"This card is the property of [insert bank name here] bank/credit union. It may be revoked by the [insert bank name here] without notice and shall be surrendered upon demand. "
I'm sure an agreement to "surrender" the property was also covered in the agreement signed by the account holder when he created the account.
Thank You!! Exactly correct. Does the Sheriff think the property his office is on is private? I believe it to be public. Just like a right of way
|
Venator
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 07:32 pm |
|
superdemon wrote: hotrod wrote: superdemon wrote: Well, how about this...
I was recently at a county Sheriff's department, and I saw a sign in the parking lot that said, "Skateboarding not permitted on county property. Skateboards will be confiscated and not returned."
If that was not legal, why would the Sheriff advertise that he was going to violate the Constitution? Would that not open him up to lawsuits?
Yes it would open him to lawsuit. If he confiscated without charging a crime. Without giving the accused a chance to defend in open court. Not giving the accused the ability to reclaim private property would be grounds for a lawsuit. If you were in Kentucky and the county sheriff has such a sign, he better have a county ordinance that does not allow skateboarding on public property or in designated areas. That also opens up the county for suit as well if he confiscates without due process. I can put a sign up at my home that says, "don't walk on the sidewalk or I will sue you". Doesn't mean I can do it.
The sdewalk is not your property.
Why would an LEO intentionally do something to bring more lawsuits onto the department? Really?
You can sue for just about anything, it doesn't mean you will win.
Let me give you yet another example of no due process...
When I worked at an auto parts store, and someone used a credit card that was bad, or way overdue, I would get a message that told me to either hold or destroy the card. Where is the due process in that?
You can talk Constitutional theory until you are blue in the face, but I am telling you what I have seen in action day after day for a decade.
It happens. I am not saying I agree with it, or support it, all I am sayig is that it happens.
Does the credit card company own the card and can they have an agent (vendor) retrieve said property?
|
hotrod
Regular Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 2nd, 2009 10:59 pm |
|
Venator wrote: superdemon wrote: hotrod wrote: superdemon wrote: Well, how about this...
I was recently at a county Sheriff's department, and I saw a sign in the parking lot that said, "Skateboarding not permitted on county property. Skateboards will be confiscated and not returned."
If that was not legal, why would the Sheriff advertise that he was going to violate the Constitution? Would that not open him up to lawsuits?
Yes it would open him to lawsuit. If he confiscated without charging a crime. Without giving the accused a chance to defend in open court. Not giving the accused the ability to reclaim private property would be grounds for a lawsuit. If you were in Kentucky and the county sheriff has such a sign, he better have a county ordinance that does not allow skateboarding on public property or in designated areas. That also opens up the county for suit as well if he confiscates without due process. I can put a sign up at my home that says, "don't walk on the sidewalk or I will sue you". Doesn't mean I can do it.
The sdewalk is not your property.
Why would an LEO intentionally do something to bring more lawsuits onto the department? Really?
You can sue for just about anything, it doesn't mean you will win.
Let me give you yet another example of no due process...
When I worked at an auto parts store, and someone used a credit card that was bad, or way overdue, I would get a message that told me to either hold or destroy the card. Where is the due process in that?
You can talk Constitutional theory until you are blue in the face, but I am telling you what I have seen in action day after day for a decade.
It happens. I am not saying I agree with it, or support it, all I am sayig is that it happens.
Does the credit card company own the card and can they have an agent (vendor) retrieve said property? This is getting way off topic, but, yes a credit card company can request the vendor retrieve their card. It is included in the agreement you sign to use the card company. You are not obligated, but they appreciate your help. Personally, I would not. Thats just me
|
rscottie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 3rd, 2009 12:32 am |
|
From everything I've read about this man I have come to the conclusion that he is NOT a CRIMINAL.
He may have gotten a little upset because he was stuck outside of his vehicle and needed help. Now, I understand that he is in poor health. If that is so, being stranded outside is indeed a reason to call for help. If the only number he had to call was 911, then he had no choice.
As far as his gun getting partially covered because it was windy or whatever, I find it hard to stomach someone calling that a crime. Mainly because I believe that carrying a firearm is not a privilege to be granted by the government and you should be able to carry openly or concealed with no permits whatsoever.
Yes, it may be against the law, but the law is wrong. And that is why we should support this man. He may not be the posterboy for opencarry, but if he is otherwise a good law-abiding citizen, he shouldn't be put through so much legal garbage just because he was frustrated by being locked outside his vehicle.
I'm betting that more than one of us on here has said something in frustration that we wish we had not...and we were probably not arrested.
|
superdemon
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 3rd, 2009 07:04 pm |
|
rscottie wrote: From everything I've read about this man I have come to the conclusion that he is NOT a CRIMINAL.
He may have gotten a little upset because he was stuck outside of his vehicle and needed help. Now, I understand that he is in poor health. If that is so, being stranded outside is indeed a reason to call for help. If the only number he had to call was 911, then he had no choice.
1. As far as his gun getting partially covered because it was windy or whatever, I find it hard to stomach someone calling that a crime. Mainly because I believe that carrying a firearm is not a privilege to be granted by the government and you should be able to carry openly or concealed with no permits whatsoever.
Yes, it may be against the law, but the law is wrong. 2.And that is why we should support this man. He may not be the posterboy for opencarry, but if he is otherwise a good law-abiding citizen, he shouldn't be put through so much legal garbage just because he was frustrated by being locked outside his vehicle.
3.I'm betting that more than one of us on here has said something in frustration that we wish we had not...and we were probably not arrested.
Sir, your two bolded statements contradict each other.
1. Unfortunately for you and B4M, the Commonwealth of KY says it is a crime.
2. Well, let's just go ahead and support someone who broke a law that we don't agree with. Hell, let's go round up some NAMBLA members and take 'em on down to the courthouse so they can support the next child molester that goes to trial, since they don't agree that molesting little kids is wrong...
3. Frustration is one thing, but saying what he said on the phone, to the police, was stupid, and unfortunately, again, the Commonwealth says it is illegal. You can't have a police department that is going to let people call and behave that way on the phone. Being locked out of your car is NOT a 911 situation, and is barely a police situation with all the good, hardworking locksmiths and wrecker drivers out there trying to earn a living. If he had a phone, he had many other options than 911.
Most importantly, and what really goes to B4M's actions, he knew the police were on their way, and he didn't have the foresight enough to make sure, absolutely sure that his weapon stayed in a legal condition. He could have rectified that in many ways as well, and simply chose not to.
You can believe in your rights all you want, and talk theory all day long, but in the real world, actions like B4M's come with consequences.
|
PT111
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Apr 3rd, 2009 11:31 pm |
|
This is getting way off topic, but, yes a credit card company can request the vendor retrieve their card. It is included in the agreement you sign to use the card company. You are not obligated, but they appreciate your help. Personally, I would not. Thats just me
I think when you sign the agreement to honor their cards you also agree to these terms at least that is what I read when I started accepting credit cards. I was fortunate that I never was notified to hold a card but I do know some that were told to hold it because it was stolen. I know some clerks that have gotten a $50 reward for holding a stolen card. If they can keep the person there until police can make an arrest then they get an even bigger bonus.
There are certain guidelines that you accept by being able to honor a credit card and it varies to the type of card but you are legally obligated to follow those guidelines.
|
intellavore
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 12:38 am |
|
| Superdemon, Are you really going to equate a constitutionally protected Right, (not given right but protected right) with a child molester raping a child? First and foremost there is no Right given by God or protected by said constitution that allows a pervert to rape a child. However God did give you the Right to protect your family. And the Founders of this country saw fit to protect that right from government seizure. By protecting it. You said that the state of Ky disagrees with us on the FACT that we don't need no permit to carry a gun covered or uncovered? Have you never heard of the Lesser Magistrate? Grab a copy of Blacks law book and check it out. Forcing Americans to take a license or permit to keep and bear arms is as ridiculous as telling a preacher he can't preach against homosexuality on the street corner. Why have Americans decided to just do as they are told like good little doggies. It is and UNJUST LAW AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DISOBEYED. The right to keep and bear arms is there to protect us from the government, so that should the need arise we can stand up as one and overthrow a dictators regime. Now if we allow that same government to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms how are we to protect ourselves from that government? Its time people stop taking what the government tells you as gospel and do a little damn studying. Now your Rights and then be prepared to defend them at any cost. Or be prepared to be relieved of your liberties and shackled like good little slaves.
|
intellavore
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 23rd, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 12:56 am |
|
Flyer, here's by Ky constitutional argument. Kentucky joined the Union and agreed that the Constitution of the United States of America is the Law of the land. Therefore they bound themselves to it. And are therefore beholden to it. Now I'm no Lawyer so bear with me here. This is section 1 of the Ky Constitutions Bill of Rights....
First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties.
Second: The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.
Third: The right of seeking and pursuing their safety and happiness.
Fourth: The right of freely communicating their thoughts and opinions.
Fifth: The right of acquiring and protecting property.
Sixth: The right of assembling together in a peaceable manner for their common good, and of applying to those invested with the power of government for redress of grievances or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.
Text as Ratified on: August 3, 1891, and revised September 28, 1891.
History: Not yet amended. Now I understand that Ky can and does ammend it's constitution but have you considered the opening of this section of the constitution.....
All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: Now as i said I'm no lawyer and I know this post is getting a little long but, Do you understand the words INHERENT and INALIENABLE...........first inherent,
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic <risks inherent in the venture>
— in·her·ent·ly adverb Now for inalienable.....
in·alien·able [url=javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?inalie01.wav=inalienable')] [/url]
Pronunciation:
\(ˌ)i-ˈnāl-yə-nə-bəl, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
probably from French inaliénable, from in- + aliénable alienable
Date:
circa 1645
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>
— in·alien·abil·i·ty [url=javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?inalie02.wav=inalienability')][/url] \-ˌnāl-yə-nə-ˈbi-lə-tē, -ˌnā-lē-ə-nə-\ noun
— in·alien·ably [url=javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?inalie03.wav=inalienably')][/url] \-ˈnāl-yə-nə-blē, -ˈnā-lē-ə-nə-\ adverb .......The government doesn't have the right to legislate away your rights to keep and bear arms as they are inherent and inalianable. That means (in case your not keeping up) that the government didn't give you the right nor can they take it away from you. And if they do you are morally and legally justified in taking any action you deam neccessary to defend that right. I look forward to further discussion. Sorry it's such a long post but I am very passionate about this subject......
|
dtabb
Regular Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | Louisville, KY |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 01:04 pm |
|
The previous thread on this case included some debate on why LEOs dislike OC. There is some history in this particular community.
In 1989, a Jefferson County Police officer was killed by a reported "squirrel hunter" walking down a suburban road with a .22 rifle. When the officers arrived, one of whom knew the man from previous encounters, he leveled the rifle and shot the officer in the head. The other officer arrested him. I cannot believe his restraint with regard to becoming executioner. One incredible professional. The killer was found to be incompetent to stand trial.
The arresting officer never got over the incident and eventually was released from the force. Some years later he killed himself, with his service weapon, in a bedroom of his mother's house.
It's ironic that two officers are dead while the perp enjoys taxpayer-funded room, board, and medical care for the rest of his life.
Obviously, the killer was not mentally fit to be in possession of a weapon at all. That's why police respond to "Person With A Gun" calls. Nobody has any way of knowing, under Kentucky's open carry right, whether that person is allowed to possess any weapon. It is up to the person to know whether they are legal or not, and a mentally defective person is probably not in the best position to determine that.
I absolutely hate gun control laws, but I try to keep an open mind for the sake of debate. I understand why LEOs may dislike OC...most of us don't have to respond to those calls.
I think our best approach is education...know our rights and explain them in a rational, calm, controlled way when confronted. Then again, some people just can't be educated. Does anyone else see the quandary here?
Police officers have long memories. We shouldn't hate them for that.
Take care...
|
Grapeshot
Activist Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 8th, 2009 01:20 pm |
|
dtabb wrote: snip........
Nobody has any way of knowing, under Kentucky's open carry right, whether that person is allowed to possess any weapon.
Fact - cars kill more people than guns do; so should LE stop every person seen in possession of one? Perhaps we need to judge people by their actions. 
LEOs are often in tough situations - I do not envy them but I do respect them with very few exceptions.
Yata hey
|
Current time is 08:16 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|
|
