Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun seizure by olice was proper says Appeals court
The Record of Hackensack ^ | 6.28.02

Posted on 06/29/2002 9:15:11 PM PDT by Coleus

Appeals court says gun seizure by Wayne police was proper

JENNIFER V. HUGHES

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."

http://www.northjersey.com/cgi-bin/page.pl?id=4107220


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; 4thamendment; banglist; constitution; drunkdriving; dwi; gun; newjersey; nj; permit; trt
This story kind of irks me. This man leagally purchased and owned his guns, the guns were taken away illegally thus violating his 2nd and 4th amendment rights and never returned to him.

The judge used case law and based his decision on no state statute. I never heard that if one owns a gun locked in his home has anything to do whether he drinks and drives. So, the cops and the judge allowed the man to keep his weapon, HIS CAR , and took his toys and hobby away. This just doesn't make sense to me. And where were these great cops when they arrested him 4 times over the past 20 yrs.? They did not ever cross check references to see if he owned any firearms? This doesn't make the cops and municipal court judges too bright either.

So, how are the laws in other states regarding these issues?

I guess if he had children, the state would have taken them away too.

1 posted on 06/29/2002 9:15:11 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: umgud; RaceBannon; lowbridge; yooper; Dan from Michigan; Lady GOP; hoosierboy; hole_n_one; ...
`
2 posted on 06/29/2002 9:16:32 PM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
The government needs to stop confiscating guns for unrelated crimes. If a gun is used in a crime, then confiscate it, otherwise I don't see how they can justify confiscation. Obviously they don't need any justification, constitutional or otherwise. When it comes to guns, the police are always too ready to confiscate everything in the house, whether they have a right to or not.
3 posted on 06/29/2002 10:54:07 PM PDT by goodieD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodieD
Yes, I agree, in this case the police were very wrong. This man had nothing to do with the domestic violence, it was his brother and no guns were involved in his DWI convictons--they were safely and responsibly locked away.

Even if he were legally carrying them, one does have to do with the other. It's crazy that they allowed him to keep his "weapon" associated with his DWI "his car" and confiscated his locked away guns, go figure.

4 posted on 06/30/2002 11:09:49 AM PDT by Coleus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Hi Coleus. Thanks for the ping BTTT
5 posted on 06/30/2002 6:13:00 PM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
Issuing a license to insure our "rights" means that witholding that license "denies" us our rights. Any further questions about the anti-gun agenda? Any questions about the agenda of activist judges?
6 posted on 07/01/2002 10:53:32 AM PDT by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson