Posted on 09/16/2002 7:24:13 PM PDT by tarawa
Possession of a half-ounce of wacky weed blows away their Second Amerndment rights, not to mention their Fifth (seizure of property without compensation)?
OK, but if the owners of the guns don't get them back it's also about asset forteiture as well as guns and dope. If the guns were legally aquired, which is apparently yet to be determined, then the law has no right to seize them since they were not involved in the commission of a crime.
BTW, how can the cops allege the owners committed a federal felony by signing the ATF purchase forms for the guns if they can't prove they were using drugs at the time of the purchases? As best I remember, all the form asks is if the purchaser is addicted to alcohol or narcotic drugs. I think they would at least have to have an affidavit from someone saying that they saw the purchasers habitually using illegal drugs for a period of time prior to the purchase in order to make that allegation.
That is the place of the judge that offers/denys search warrents. Without one, they have NO rights whatsoever to search the property. These police followed the correct procedure. The judge is the one that determines if there is enough evidence to enact a search warrent, not the police. Do I think police need to knock on the door of each person that they plan to search and say "hey, we are going to eat a donut in the car but we will be back in three hours to search your house if that is ok with you", then the answer is no. If you don't understand why, then you are unworthy of me investing any more time in debate with you. There is a reason the element of surprise turns up more reliable evidence than the other method. I don't think a school bus driving dope smoker would have submitted to a search in the first case. Do you? Do you really think that the pot would of not of been flushed if they were given time?
I can imagine all the Meth dealers that would love to have your property rights rules. They could do what they want on their property and only get busted if they left their santuary of home. If they could get the people to just enter their homes to buy the drugs, they could never be found guilty. No one could enter their property to obtain any evidence.
Section 8 (e) of the current version of Form 4473 reads as follows:
"Are you the unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeal held, in the Emerson ruling, that the bold print paragraph (the "I affirm that the foregoing responses are true..." language) which precedes the signature portion of the 4473 was sufficient to put Emerson on notice regarding the possession of firearms.
Even if all but one of the firearms pre-dated the current version of the 4473, they can argue that since he was put on notice regarding one, he was on notice concerning all.
Just enforcing the laws on the books, right? Too bad nobody mentioned a plan to get rid of the egregious laws first.
This really does sound like something out of Nazi Germany. One can only ask why this over-zealous "law enforcement?" I have been skeptical over the proposals to legalize drugs, for fear of sending a misleading signal to impressionable youth. But this sort of use of the drug laws to destroy the lives of middle-class Americans may force many of us to reconsider the whole question.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
As can matches, rags, and any sort of container in which one could put gasolene or any other inflammable liquid.
Actually, George Washington repeatedly urged a well armed population--see The Right To Keep & Bear Arms. The BATF didn't get the message; but then we got to see how American the BATF were when they dropped onto a roof in Waco, dressed like masked thugs. And it was not for a Holloween party. But the idea of going out of your way to harass those who follow Washington's loving admonitions to his fellow countrymen, certainly demonstrates one of the modern low points in "public service."
William Flax
Strawman argument.
"There is a reason the element of surprise turns up more reliable evidence than the other method. I don't think a school bus driving dope smoker would have submitted to a search in the first case."
There is too much emphasis on "the element of surprise" based on informants. Sorry, but I would prefer not to arrest someone with less than half an ounce of marijuana and be more secure in my right not to have police smash down the door.
The "cure" is worse than the disease. Exactly who were these folks harming with less than half an ounce of marijuana??
Your "meth lab" argument is a strawman as well--we're not talking about meth labs here.
But many here seem to think that a different standard applies when this person is not driving the bus, and is merely in posession of a collection of firearms and sufficient ammunition to create mayhem.
No one has questioned the ability to these folks to teach gun safety.
It is pretty much a given that the firearms were around while they were using drugs. Maybe this person was straight and sober when driving the bus.
I don't like the caprice, with which, in some instances confiscation seems to be conducted, but in all honesty, this would make a lousy test case.
Sounds like a planted plant to me.
There is ZERO evidence that there was any at all drug use. Drug possession, yes. According the the blurb, the individual was given the drugs by an old friend who WAS a user. This could be readily proven or disproven by a blood test (there are VERY sensitive tests for tetrahydrocannibol. I missed the part about him losing his job, as the title was about firearms. Total bullbleep to lose your job over less than half an ounce of marijuana.
I suspect some of their other bus drivers DRINK on weekends--why aren't THEY fired??
Soooo Sorry. I work in the oil industry. Go Ahead, have a 1/2 ounce of grass on a drilling rig in these parts and your a$$ is down the road. Period.
See how long your CDL would last if they found 1/2 ounce of grass in the semi at the weigh station, (much less the license to drive a school bus).
Geeez, someone stoned on a drilling rig would only get maybe three or four other people killed at worst, not a busload of children.
If they weren't using it, why have it? It is illegal, and cause for lots of trouble (obviously). Just in case they get glaucoma? Or was the driver selling it to the schoolkids?
They don't deny breaking the law. They had two stashes, one in a purse and one at the house. Why?
Smells like a user or a dealer to me.
Typical anti-drug stupidity. Note that the article says she PASSED ALL THE MANDATORY DRUG TESTS FOR HER JOB. This proves pretty incontrovertibly that she wasn't "using" as it is virtually impossible to fake such tests (in fact, they are far more likely to yield a "false positive" than a "false negative".
The idea that possession=use is simply bullshit. And in fact, even use should not be a factor in employment--the ONLY criterion should that the person does his/her job the way they are supposed to do it. Making those judgement calls is what managers are supposed to do. "Drug-testing" requirements are simply substituting blanket blind rules for management judgement.
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.