Posted on 12/03/2002 6:32:19 AM PST by Iron Eagle
Edited on 05/07/2004 7:38:55 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Published in the Asbury Park Press 12/03/02 Fire alerts authorities to nearly 500 weapons By MICHAEL CLANCY STAFF WRITER FAIR HAVEN -- Three dump trucks removed an arsenal of live ammunition and almost 500 weapons -- all of them apparently held legally -- which police found in a home after the fire department responded to a chimney fire and the homeowner threatened the fire chief with a rifle, authorities said yesterday.
(Excerpt) Read more at app.com ...
Must give 'em a heck of a power rush.
"Stroke of a pen, law of the land..."
They are all starting to sound the same though. Notice that even though I pointed out the difference between a Constitutional Law, and a law passed in spite of the Constitution, he went and found some Wisconsin statute to prop up his claims.
Pathetic.
The authority falls to the State legislatures to regulate the actions of fire departments within their borders. In the absence of any specific statutory prohibition against firemen ordering folks out of burning buildings, one looks to the common law.
So, for example, if you wish to make the argument that the Fire Chief "tresspassed" on the man's property, or somehow "converted" it, you are out of luck.
At such times, the individual rights of property give way to the higher laws of impending necessity. Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (1853), 58 Am.Dec. 385 (reversing judgment in favor of owner whose house was dynamited in order to prevent the spread of fire).Despite your protestations to the contrary, what the Fire Chief was legal. (Although you could argue that the Fire Chief acted negligently--making some compensation possible. That does not appear to be the case here).
So there's your legal "basis," and it will remain the basis until it is reversed by the judiciary, or amended by the legislature. Seeing that the privilege of necessity has been around since shortly after the Norman Conquest, and the above is a textbook tort case, that appears unlikely.
well, one of the Freepers had it right -- once it is determined to be an emergency scene, the officer in charge of fire command has absolute authority over the property until the scene is secured -- this is why, for suspected arson fires, we always had to post a member, 24/7, until the investigators were done, since leaving the scene constitutes "secure", i.e., relinquishing our right to the property. as long as fire command "had" the scene, no warrants are required; this goes away immediately when fire command clears the scene.
so, yes, the chief had the right to clear the man out for his own safety (which, btw, was impaired by the smoke, not the live ammo). and, yes, chimney fires are a bitch -- but it's not really common to destroy the chimney, more likely the walls, etc, that the flame spreads into. we don't have to do that as much, now that we have thermal imaging cameras to check for extension, but it must be done if it extends. it can also get into the roof through flames shooting out the top. (they make special flares to extinguish chimney fires, but it's cheaper to fill a baggie with dry powder and drop it down from the top. very cool.)
Go back and re-read that thread buddy. I was firmly on the side of those who thought he should be prosecuted for murder. My only questions revolved around the lack of details that jived together in the media reporting of the incident. Also, since we DIDN'T have all the info, that it was pre-mature to hang the man without a trial of all the facts.
If I recall correctly, you were all for lynching him. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It isn't that hard to understand. I haven't personally read all of the State Constitutions, but I'm willing to bet that a number of them echo the Federal constitutions property rights clauses.
And yes, I do have a problem with that. We also dumped a lot of the Kings and Lords "Rights and Privilages" as well.
Do you think they were a good idea?
Get real.
You came real close to echoing the lefties "living document" interpretation and even seem to approve of judicial activism. Twisting the Constitution to fit the needs of the moment.
There is an amendment process to alter the Constitution. Try that instead of making laws that go against the document that gives them their force.
The gunpowder will still ignite, but the moment the slug leaves the jacket, all of the energy is released and little of it propels the bullet. If the round is in a gun, it is propelled with the full force of the chemical expansion, and all in one specific direction down the length of the barrel.
Compare the water calmly burbling out of your garden hose before and after you stick your thumb on the opening, either dispersing the force over a large area (the opening of the hose) or channelling it all in one direction.
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.