that's all well and good since you don't live in NY... here you have to play the hand you're dealt
Posted on 11/13/2014 6:37:56 AM PST by george76
Don’t these dumb cops know anything about “inheritance?”
that's all well and good since you don't live in NY... here you have to play the hand you're dealt
No warrant. They just show up at the door and one says, can I come in. I, of course, am a mess with an unexpected death, and no idea why he is dead. I know we have no illegal drugs, or guns at the time or none such, so it does not scare me. I mean, my husband just died in the living room and I have not idea why - as far as I know, it could be a stroke, or it could be a heart attack or an overdose, but I don’t know.
He goes into the room, and starts looking around, peering at everything, and it is very confusing to me - I am like, “What are you looking for?” and he says, oh any drugs or medications - and of course they are all out on the shelf - he picks them up, hauls them off, and that’s that.
IMHO he had no right to take them or at least they should have been returned or at the very least an inventory should have been sent me- they were not his property and frankly I might have wanted them for legal purposes or such - but this choice was not given to me and I was in no state to really object to anything. And off he goes. Since then I have found this is very common in FL. Being that I called 911 for help initially when my husband collapsed, and the police showed up then because the medics reported as a suspected overdose, it never occurred to me when the police showed up a few hours later to be suspicious of them. I mean, I was a basketcase.
No truer statement on this thread.
civil asset forfeiture
is theft
If I lived in NY I would not be on the records as a registered gun owner. Nor would I be unarmed. The rulers would be disappointed, I’m sure but Hey, that’s life.
and be praying to God you never get caught with a handgun...
That is something I leave up to my attorney. We have had a deep discussion about it and I’ll follow his advice, “Keep your mouth shut. Talking with cops and prosecutors is what you pay me for.” I’ve carried for forty years with no problems so far.
If they were quality firearms they are at some of the police brass’ home.
I fear the police now much more that I fear the criminal.
Did you consent to that search?
Another good reason to have a will.
It was felt that depressed family members might re-use the suicide weapons for the same purpose!
"May issue" has to do with permits. No American needs a permit to own a gun, or to leave it to another American.
The CCW Permit is in and of itself anti-constitutional, but is a debatable compromise (and thus dangerous) solution to the problem of keeping guns out of the wrong hands.
The NY problem is armed felons and un-armed citizens. The urban NY propensity to elect assklounz to represent the whole state is no help.
Read my post 103. They take advantage of the fact that you call them in the first place, that you are grieving, often caught by surprise, show up at your door within an hour of death, walk in with sympathetic faces as if they are there to help. I could barely talk, let alone object to anything, I was in a state of shock. When I tried to say the word “died” nothing would come out of my mouth. This was a sudden, unexpected death. They know all this. They know 9 out of 10 families will be totally unprepared to deal with them. And of course frankly I WANTED the machinery to go forward somewhat, because I wanted very much to know what happened. It’s just that looking back on it I realize how untrustworthy they really were.
I was looking on the web one day and came across a blog that I cannot find now, but it seems this happens to lots of folks. If you have a family member that dies suddenly of an overdose, even a prescription overdose (this was an older man and blood pressure medicine, which many do not know an overdose will kill you faster than most any controlled substance on the market!) they WILL come search your house right after! I do not know the logistics of if they get a warrant if you do not let them look, because that did not happen.
The JBTs who took them, split them up and stole them for their own collections.
Damn; your in law enforcement, you should know that.
The War on Drugs beats that, it violates 9 of 10 of the Bill of Rights — reposting my reply from this thread:
>>> Is the mere possession of a firearm or a toy that looks like a firearm justification?
>> Of course not. And I never suggested such a thing.
> There are folks here who hold that position. They also tend to say anyone not immediately obeying every command deserves to be shot.
>> ...do we all have to go around with our hands in the air these days to keep from being shot by the police? > Oh no! What we all have to do is, when they come knocking (IF they knock), is hit the floor, spread eagle, wait for them to break the door down, and pray that they don't take out their steroid-enhanced anger out on our necks and backs. And don't forget to say "Yes sir!" "No sir!"
> Also, why are so many public employees armed? Why is the USPS buying ammo? Why does the IRS have armed SWAT agents? They can’t use a better trained specialized police unit? Public employees have become too militarized.Answered here:
Stop, Drop, and Cower
[Direct Link]
I'll go so far as to assert that the police simply do not care about Justice at all, if they did then they as-a-group would not hesitate to "out" one of their own that did commit crime — instead we see them covering up the crimes of their fellows. Instead of embracing the long-held classical English/American philosophy
It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer(William Blackstone), thy embrace a philosophy ofthere are only perps and perps we haven't caught.Indeed, much of the problem can be laid at the feet of the acceptance of the legitimacy of the War on Drugs; I'd go so far as to say anyone advocating the War on Drugs cannot be a Constitutionalist — because the War on Drugs has damaged 90% of the Bill of Rights:
Amendment 10 — Destroyed by combining “necessary and proper” with the intrastate/interstate regulation of Wickard.
Amendment 9 — Everything. Seriously, EVERYTHING about the War on Drugs is about the federal government exercising powers not expressly delegated by the Constitution.
From Justice Thomas’s Dissent in Raich:“If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits.”Amendment 8 — Mandatory minimums and zero tolerance combine to make the punishments outweigh many of the “crimes”, even is you accept the crime as valid.
Amendment 7 — In [civil] asset forfeiture, the victims are routinely denied jury-trials even though the amount in controversy exceeds $20.
Amendment 6 — The clogging of the courts with drug-related cases erodes the notion of a “speedy trial” to a joke. Often drug charges are added on to the list of crimes, which can “taint” the jury w/ prejudices. Often police act on informants whose identities are “protected”, which impairs the ability to confront the accuser.
Amendment 5 — How does “Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984” comply with “No person shall [...] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”?
Amendment 4 — Kentucky v King”The Fourth Amendment expressly imposes two requirements: All searches and seizures must be reasonable; and a warrant may not be issued unless probable cause is properly established and the scope of the authorized search is set out with particularity. [...] The proper test follows from the principle that permits warrantless searches: warrantless searches are allowed when the circumstances make it reasonable, within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment , to dispense with the warrant requirement.”In other words:Yes, the fourth amendment requires warrants for searches, but… fuck that!
Amendment 3 — [Nope, nothing here... yet.]
Amendment 2 — Arguably, the “prohibited persons” from the `68 GCA.
Amendment 1 — Religious freedom is denied via the war on drugs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith ), there are stories of “legalization”-advocacy publishers being raided/harassed. So, that’s 90% of the amendments in the Bill of Rights.
If that's not cause for concern, and impetus for stopping the War on Drugs then is there anything that cannot be done in its name?servo1969:
A very powerful interview I watched was of the McLennan county sheriff in Waco Texas in the aftermath of the Branch Davidians slaughter. The Sheriff knew the Davidians and offered to walk in to the compound and talk to David Koresh. The ATF and FBI refused and we all know the result. A good cop, the Sheriff, was over ruled by agents playing army and the whole lot of them were massacred.The police are not your friends; you should never talk to the cops. (Even other cops agree.)
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.