Posted on 08/13/2011 5:40:41 AM PDT by marktwain
Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- It can be argued that the only personal property specifically protected by the US Constitution is firearms.
While the Fourth Amendment promises “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” and requires a sworn warrant “describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” it does specifically allow for such seizure if the “i’s” are properly dotted and the “t’s” correctly crossed.
Similarly the Fifth Amendment guarantees against a person being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” but again, it recognizes a process for such deprivation and taking.
The Second Amendment contains no such provisions for circumvention.
While I would not argue that the Second Amendment precludes society from ever restricting arms in any circumstance – such as to inmates in prison or briefly while police sort out the good guys from the bad guys at an incident – I do believe that it places firearms in a very special and protected place under law; a place where any deprivation of the right should receive special scrutiny and careful consideration. But our judicial system seems to take the exact opposite view. In any legal issue firearms are typically the first thing taken away and the last thing returned – if they are ever returned at all.
US Judges Display Little Respect For Second Amendment Rights
A couple of recent cases renewed my concern about the attitude that the courts routinely exhibit toward guns.
In Nevada last October Al DiCicco made the mistake of taking political speech a bit too far when he expressed his dislike for a local Family Court judge by backing his truck into one of the judge’s reelection campaign signs. A local police officer happened to see the vandalism and Al found himself under arrest for a gross misdemeanor. During the arrest a loaded lever-action rifle was discovered in DiCicco’s truck. That’s another misdemeanor. The police seized the rifle and a .32 caliber pistol which was legally carried.
After resolution of the citations the judge declared that she was not going to return DiCicco’s guns – even though Nevada law does not provide for forfeiture of the rifle under the circumstances and the pistol was not connected to any crime. Now DiCicco, who is disabled and lives on a small, fixed income, is left with the option of either allowing his guns to be illegally forfeited or trying to scrape together the funds to stage a challenge to the unlawful taking.
In a different incident that illustrates the same issue, Joe Winslow, a member of the Quartzsite, Arizona Town Council, has sworn out a protective order complaint against a local political activist. He claimed that he thought the activist was headed toward violence and requested that the judge ban the man from City Hall and prohibit him from possessing firearms or ammunition. The judge granted his request. (She subsequently vacated that decision after exposure in the Knox Report on WND.com and ensuing public outrage.)
Consider the ramifications of this court order. The court forbid a person from the immediate vicinity of a public servant and suspended the constituent’s constitutional rights – anywhere – indefinitely. He could go bird hunting in Argentina and be cited for violating the terms of the protective order. All based on an unsubstantiated suspicion.
These are but two among thousands of examples of courts displaying utter disdain for the Second Amendment and the individual right to arms. I personally have had to do battle with a judge when the .22 rifle my father gave me for my 10th birthday (a most treasured possession) was stolen and criminally misused. When the criminal proceedings ended and I expected my gun to be returned, the judge declared that the gun was to be forfeited as if it belonged to the criminal. Were it not for the assistance of a City Prosecutor I don’t think I would have been able to recover that precious family heirloom. And this happened at a time when I was a very prominent member of the business community and had just come within a few hundred votes of winning a seat in the state legislature. I seriously doubt that someone less well-connected could have gotten the gun back.
The primary mission of government is to ensure the blessings of liberty to the citizens. The primary mission of the courts is to uphold the rule of law toward that end. For the courts to dismiss core tenants of the law and disregard a fundamental, enumerated right as if it were a government-granted privilege is unacceptable and needs to be addressed. We elect these judges or elect the people who appoint them. It’s up to us to hold them accountable for their lack of respect for the Constitution.
Copyright © 2011 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.
About: The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org
The cost of obtaining a court order typically is several times the value of the firearm.
I had a brother of a LA police officer in one of my concealed weapons classes. When we talked about this issue, he said that his brother had accumulated a large collection of guns in the course of his duties.
While officers are often given guns by citizens who want them to be legally disposed of, and who do not have the time or inclination to do so themselves, the temptation to keep impounded arms that otherwise will be destroyed must be a strong one.
Bookmark for later re-read because it’s that good.
My brother had a S&W .44 seized from him during a traffic stop. He tried for two years to get it back - unsuccessfully. I wonder upon whose shelf my late brothers prized firearm rests?
What state did the theft under color of law occur in?
Washington state
Do you have any paperwork? The serial number? Perhaps the firearm could be listed as stolen.
As soon as anyone in the U.S. who was not both convicted of a crime AND in at the same time serving in prison (concurrently) lost their gun rights, everyone did. Everyone else now merely has a priviledge. Either God gave rights to man, or the rights were given by government and can be taken. As soon as any rights are taken from one, they can swiftly be taken from all. The choice is simple, everyone gets back their rights, or no one will have them but those currently in poer. It’s an age old fact.
poer=power
Thanks marktwain.
I wonder when that happened. I know that felons who served long jail terms carried guns out in the open in the old west up till about 1900, after they were released from jail.
That day is short and coming very soon!
“I wonder when that happened.”
IIRC Felons lost their gun rights in the 1950/1960’s (though I could be wrong, I’m looking for a date/act, no luck so far, but it’s what I’ve been told).
In 1996 those merely accused of DV (misdemeanor) with a protection order (no conviction required) lose their rights, as well as all those convicted of a DV misdemeanor. I’m not sure of every situation that will result in a loss of 2A rights (they’re calling it a priviledge now), but they are increasing. Hence many/most petty crimes/statutes are becoming felonies, because the aim is submission, and nothing more.
“I know that felons who served long jail terms carried guns out in the open in the old west up till about 1900, after they were released from jail.”
I’ve heard the same, and that one was even allowed to have a gun in jail if awaiting trial, but I’m looking for a historical reference to back that up. Not sure yet where to look, though.
Ah, thank you very much! I know that in some states there are no such laws, so I’m curious how far the state police would go in enforcing the federal one (or turning them over).
I remember reading on one board of a person (I cannot recall if the poster was a male or female), who was driving with a family member, taking another family member to a new residence (another state IIRC). Anyway, they were pulled over for some reason or another, and the driver asked if they had any weapons. The driver advised there was an unloaded firearm in the trunk and if i recall right, the driver had a CC permit. The passenger (being driven) had at some point gotten a restraining order (during divorce, I believe), and subsequently was subject to Lautenberg.
The trooper told them that it was a felony that they gave him access to a weapon, and when they replied that they hadn’t, the trooper said that being in the same car would qualify them, even though the firearm was in a locked trunk. He said he would arrest them all if they didn’t give up the firearms, or throw the passenger out.
I forget what ultimately happened in the story, but it’s still a pretty stupid situation, enabled by unconstitutional laws. Sadly, the American public has dropped the ball on this issue, because so many have the mentality, of “It doesn’t affect me, so I don’t care.” The problem is, that it always will.
Thank you for your helpful post, because I’ve been trying to determine which of the gun control act’s was the initial culprit, but was not certain of where to look. Thank you again.
My best information so far is that the 1968 Federal Firearms Act made it illegal for felons to buy firearms from federally licensened dealers, and a fair number of states then started to make it illegal for a felon to own a firearm.
Please share any further information that you find on this.
Will do, and thank you again!
“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
- Martin Niemoeller
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.