Dog Gone at Penigma
The only way for seizure of an illegal assault weapon is through a court-issued warrant, and then only after a court hearing has ruled on the legality/illegality of the weapon. Simply receiving a letter that your request for registration was too late is NOT grounds for such a warrant, because there are multiple options for possible legal disposal of the now-illegal firearms, etc. That means that while you clearly had an assault rifle, etc. AT ONE TIME, there is insufficient basis to issue a warrant, because there is absolutely no information that shows you still have that firearm after receiving the letter, and the state themselves provided you with the information to act legally. The assumption has to be that you are legal and law abiding, not that you are guilty and unlawful. Otherwise you have grounds to dispute the legality of the warrant, and anything that results from it - or so I have been told. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I claim to be. However there does seem to be ample support for the basis and success of such a challenge in other contexts, in the form of what is in legal terminology, a motion to suppress under the exclusionary rule,and the protections of the 4th Amendment against unlawful search and seizure, as well as possible protection under state Constitutions.
Yes, it is true that searches and seizures would be vulnerable for the reasons Dog Gone raises. This doesn't change the fact that YOU, Mikeb specifically, and many of your cohorts on the gun control side have already gone on the record demanding that the state use even thinner probable cause to go after those who didn't register their guns.
ReplyDeleteYou admitted it would be confiscation, announced you'd be fine with it, and indeed wanted it. Now that the opposition to such a concept has gotten so loud, you are calling anyone who mentions confiscation a liar for suggesting you want to try to do what you said you want to try to do.
As for the rest of the piece, it's just more of the same stuff we got in the last linked post from Penigma--using semantic arguments about a limited definition of confiscation to claim that telling someone that they must get rid of their property or potentially face prosecution at the state's leisure, is not confiscatory.
It's all dishonest spin. What's more, you know that it is or you wouldn't have agreed that what was happening and being called for in Connecticut took the credibility out of your argument that registrations would never lead to confiscations.
No one here has EVER argued for violation of Constitutional 4th Amendment rights, or violation of due process. Nor do any of the pro-gun control advocates that I have had exchanges with -- and I know most of those who are significant in that effort, and a good number of the minor figures as well.
DeleteI wrote this, and I specifically call liars those who are LYING about confiscation taking place, those who fear monger and propagandize that law enforcement will be going door to door with so-called 'no knock' warrantless search and seizure' which has not happened, is not happening, and will not occur.
I have NEVER seen any of those of us, past or present, who write here argue for confiscation or seizure, other than is consistent with the law, from those who are, through the proper legislative process and after challenge through the safeguards of the judicial system found to be prohibited possessors of firearms, ammo or accessories to firearms.
Telling someone that their gun is illegal is not, by even the most remote definition of the word, confiscation. You can sell it, you can render it inoperable and keep it, you can send it out of state but continue to own it.
Confiscation, you idiot, is if the state uses authority to seize something you own without your consent and does not compensate you for it. NONE of that has occurred here in the U.S.
In point of fact hundreds of thousands of illegal owners of assault rifles and expanded capacity magazines continue to own those firearms without any action by law enforcement, and are likely to continue to do so.
Now..........if they shoot someone breaking into their home with the illegal firearm rather than a legal one, they will be in some degree of trouble for having an illegal firearm.
SO? These people ARE breaking the law. You might not like the law or agree with the law, but when you make that decision, you opt to take your chances. That is far from 'at the state's leisure'.
That 'same stuff'' as you dismiss it, is in fact far more factual and sound than the crap you spew.
NOT ONE PERSON who registered their firearms in CT has had so much as a single bullet confiscated by anyone.
It is those who did not do so that got letters -- and those are just reminder notices aka nag notes, not anyone coming for your guns.
You can whine it any way you want to, but you have ZERO facts to support your position.
It is legal to regulate assault weapons. No court has overturned that legislation so far, ditto large capacity magazines.
Until they do, you have no valid complaint, just a lot of sloppy efforts to misrepresent the facts.
Dog gone: "Now..........if they shoot someone breaking into their home with the illegal firearm rather than a legal one, they will be in some degree of trouble for having an illegal firearm."
DeleteAnd then it will be confiscated from them! Along with the rest of their guns because of the felony charge. And they won’t be allowed to own guns for the rest of their lives. And you think this is no big deal to gun owners?
Dog gone: “It is those who did not do so that got letters -- and those are just reminder notices aka nag notes, not anyone coming for your guns.”
Do you think it’s ok for people to just ignore this “nag letters”?
Dog Gone,
DeleteI was addressing Mike since you normally don't come around to spew your invective in the comment section. He is the one I said had advocated for such violations of 4th Amendment rights.
In this post, he acknowledged that following the suggestion of the linked editorial would be an instance of registration leading to confiscation, acknowledged that he had been wrong and that this was a valid fear, and then dismissed that fear, supporting such a policy as legitimate.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/02/state-cant-let-gun-scofflaws-off-hook.html
His next post took the weak endorsement of the policy the paper advocated and made it explicit as he opposed a background check proposal on the grounds that it would not generate a paper trail that could be used for such purposes at a future date.
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/02/oregons-sb-1551-close-private-sale.html
Do you care to retract your statement that nobody here has ever advocated for such a policy? Kinda sad when your statement can be disproved with posts only two weeks old.
Or are you going to fall back on your little add in that you guys have only argued for confiscation "other than is consistent with the law"? Are you saying that all you want is confiscation through due process? If so, Mike has still argued for methods to be used which violate 4th Amendment rights.
As for your desire for due process, we still figured the states would go through the normal procedural steps--even if they violated the 4th Amendment they'd probably follow the rest of the rules afterward, and might even stop violating it after losing a case. (Of course, even though the charges wouldn't stick, they'd never return the confiscated gun, so if they don't want to jail people, they can violate the 4th all they want--Maybe that's why Mike keeps saying nobody will get prison...)
Our problem is with the law itself. No amount of due process cleanses an unjust law of its injustice; it merely refrains from compounding the injustice with further violations of rights.
Finally, why do you support these assault weapons bans so much? Even Mike has finally admitted that these laws aren't important and that the distinction between "assault weapons" and regular semi-autos lacks clarity and common sense.
Simon, about the most I admitted was that registration COULD lead to confiscation. I admitted I was wrong to say it never COULD OR WOULD. But that's a far cry from saying that I "ever advocated for such a policy."
DeleteI have approved of the efforts in different states of confiscating guns from people who have become disqualified. But I don't think I ever supported the supposed, and highly unlikely to ever happen, Connecticut confiscations.
A law is not unjust because you don't like it. It's unjust if a higher court of law says so. If certain guns are illegal to own in CT, that's that, tough shit. No confiscations will take place for all the reasons Dog Gone pointed out in her posts about this. And I don't think they should. It's embarrassing and funny that you gun nuts keep pretending door to door confiscations are imminent just to make yourselves the poor persecuted freedom fighters you like to think of yourselves as.
It's unjust if a higher court of law says so.
DeleteHahahahaha. You're so darn cute with your boot-licking authority worship.
Mike, I provided the links. You never said anything about the policy being a violation of 4th Amendment rights, even after others brought it up. Instead, as I noted, you suggested that Oregon's background check wasn't good enough because it wouldn't allow them to do what was proposed in CT.
DeleteThat's an endorsement of the policy, and your lying and pretending that never happened is getting quite ridiculous.
Yeah, TS, I think that is no big deal.
DeleteThose are assault weapons that have been legally banned.
The gun owners who made the BAD choice not to register them could have kept them legally but because of bad propaganda chose not to do so.
So, no, I have no sympathy for them after they break the law whatsoever.
THAT is not confiscation, that is lawful seizure of illegal property, the same as if it had been drugs. And even then, no such seizure can take place unless due process has been satisfied and a court makes the decision that such action is appropriate.
Kurt, no matter how much you try to lie and distort by calling my accurate use of the word confiscation a narrow or too narrow one, my use of the term is factual and accurate. Your misuse of the term is wrong and inaccurate and frankly crappy fear mongering.
There is ZERO example of any law enforcement going door to door, committing either illegal search or illegal seizure or any other kind of seizure for that matter.
To be an illegal rather than legal owner has been a choice. We keep being told how damned responsible and law abiding you gun owners are.
Clearly that has NOT been true of the majority of assault weapon and large capacity magazine owners, at least in Connecticut.
The daily news demonstrates how less than safe you are.
It also demonstrates how the lot of you are a bunch of whiners who complain you are victims when you are clearly not, and that you aren't terribly bright either.
Kurt, no matter how much you try to lie and distort by calling my accurate use of the word confiscation a narrow or too narrow one, my use of the term is factual and accurate. Your misuse of the term is wrong and inaccurate and frankly crappy fear mongering.
DeleteUm . . . what the hell are you babbling about now?
I've never been impressed with your intelligence, but somehow, it appears that I still managed to overestimate you.
But now that you mention it, let's talk about this barrel of dumbfuckery:
DeleteConfiscation, you idiot, is if the state uses authority to seize something you own without your consent and does not compensate you for it.
So if the state "compensates" you for what they seize from you against your will, it's not confiscation? By that "logic," a woman whose rapist shoves a $20 bill up one of her most personal orifices after he's done is a "prostitute," because she has been "compensated."
No f@#king way. If the state is going to "compensate" me for my so-called "assault weapons," the only currency I'll accept is blood--more than any of their hired muscle can afford to pay.
I see Dog Gone is continuing to torture definitions and dodge the other points about Mike and others supporting unconstitutional searches.
DeleteTrying to claim that there are only legal seizures and that these don't qualify as confiscations is the most ridiculous and dishonest semantic dodge I've ever seen.
Trying to claim that there are only legal seizures and that these don't qualify as confiscations is the most ridiculous and dishonest semantic dodge I've ever seen.
DeleteIndeed. Just when I think that I am beyond surprise at these folks' idiocy, they prove me wrong. It's like a challenge to them, or something.
Ah, that clears things up. All those people worried about confiscations have nothing to worry about, because their guns will be seized, not confiscated. And they won't take your gun without compensation, no of course not. They'll throw you in prison and ruin your life with a felony charge, and take the rest of your guns (even those with state approved grips). That's so much better.
DeleteBut I love how Dog gone puts this major distinction between the word "confiscate" and "seize", but she uses the word "seize" in her definition of "confiscate". Hilarious.
And FYI, the police don't need a court order for every arrest of a contraband item. When they pull someone over and find pot in a car they don't need to get paperwork from a judge before making an arrest.
And I did find more information on the California door to door program. NPR said they are doing it without warrants.
http://www.npr.org/2013/08/20/213546439/one-by-one-california-agents-track-down-illegally-owned-guns
NPR also said they generated this list by crossing it with the NICS database. I assume they meant California's handgun registry otherwise they uncovered a huge scandal that would validate the wildest fears over background checks.
DeleteBut I love how Dog gone puts this major distinction between the word "confiscate" and "seize", but she uses the word "seize" in her definition of "confiscate". Hilarious.
DeleteHa! I'd missed that. Classic.
So, Dog Gone, as long as the government gives you a pittance after taking your property, you have no problem with the, um, seizure? As a supporter of rights, I really do hope that you never face this yourself. A part of me wants to see you suffer the fate that you wish on others, but even someone as cringing and worthless as you has rights.
DeleteI've actually made the same point about the unlikelihood of a judge issuing a search warrant on such thin grounds, unless that judge is one of the very few Americans who is more than a hundredth as anti-gun as Mikeb and friends. And that, indeed, is why I think Connecticut "assault weapon" owners who receive the letter should keep their guns (and keep them loaded):
ReplyDeleteStill, all need not be lost for the last group--the obedient, but tardy, attempted registrants. The letter might be intimidating, but just how much does Connecticut have with which to back it up? If the recipients of the letter do nothing, and the state decides to push the issue, what can they do? How many judges would be willing to issue search warrants?
The "illegal" owners, after all, could have chosen any of the first three of the four offered choices, to get rid of (or disable) the evil guns/magazines, and the state would have no idea. For all the state knows, that's exactly what they did. In other words, it is difficult to see how this could be anything more than another bluff on Connecticut's part, and if the recipients of the letter choose to call that bluff, just as the scores of thousands of those who never tried to register did, the confiscationists would seemingly have hit a brick wall.
Up yours, Connecticut.
Any judge who issued such a warrant could have that warrant and anything resulting from it suppressed. More to the point, the AG's office has no interest in pursuing these.
DeleteThe risk to those who do not register their guns, regardless of receiving letters or not receiving them, is that if someone seeks a restraining order, you can be required to turn over ALL guns in your possession or to which you have a claim of ownership. A sworn statement from the person seeking a restraining order against an illegal gun owner COULD be sufficient for a valid warrant. Ditto something in a divorce fight over ownership of property where one is required to declare such ownership - and since that is not a criminal proceeding there is no 5th amendment protection for the requirement of disclosure.
If you require a registration card to buy ammo - how much can you use your illegal assault weapon? Are you going to take it to a range, where someone could require you to show your registration? How about deer hunting? Are you going to risk having the legality of the gun you used to shoot a deer get checked? A conflict with a neighbor - are you going to risk brandishing that in anger now to intimidate the neighbor against whom you have a beef? How about road rage incidents -- now you might need to think a lot harder before you grab that assault rifle.
Yeah, you can HAVE your illegal assault rifle, but there is much less you can do with it, and the potential penalties have gone up if you get busted.
But this is only an excerpt of a larger post which addresses other aspects of the lie about confiscations.
Dog Gone,
DeleteWe're going to pass a law requiring that abortion clinics be outfitted and run solely as in-patient surgery centers and require an overnight stay for observation. After all, we want to reduce the risks as much as possible, right?
Sure, none of the clinics will qualify or be able to afford complying, but it's for the lives of the Women! Why do you hate Women so much!
And we're not banning abortion, or taking away your rights to it. We're just regulating it. You can get one if you take the time to comply with the law, and if you don't like the regulations and don't want to comply with them, well, you can go out of state just like these Connecticut gun owners!
It's not a Ban! And how dare you suggest that I'm torturing that word and logic both to death! You're just a liar and an idiot like you called me!
I realize that gun control advocates feel the need to torture language all out of its natural shape, but what other word applies here? If the state uses a registry to inform legal owners of property that they must now get rid of that property, that's at least a first step toward confiscation.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Connecticut has a history of violating the rights of property owners. See Kelo v. City of New London for a refresher if you don't recall what I'm talking about.
"Confiscation, you idiot, is if the state uses authority to seize something you own without your consent and does not compensate you for it. NONE of that has occurred here in the U.S. "
ReplyDeleteNever saw the video footage of post-Katrina???
Anonymous, how dare you bring up facts that contradict Dog Gone? She's gonna give it to you now...
DeleteSo drugs have never been seized without compensation in this country? Interesting.
Delete