A new fireams case is up for SCOUS decision.
- Thread starter Recusant
- Start date
Area52
Professional
These bully compliance acts have been shaped throughout the years by the courts created by the Lefts use of appointments. Lawmakers create a hasty red flag law and expect the locale LE to follow through. Makes LE look the inept bad guy on many levels since the lawmakers and judiciary system can’t be held accountable.
This video discussion is an example of RedFlag overreach, but mostly because of lack of the RF legal clarification. The case study is ripe for interpretation which I think will eventually side with the plaintiff who lost property...a costly end result.
Sure, there are scopes of search warrants. The issue of what allegations are made, what probable cause existed and circumstance that lead to entry whether exigent of voluntary are always decided after confiscations. Warrantless seizures under ‘open view’ and film-flam voluntary admission or surrender whilst under a search warrant is being exploited. The bench can and usually returns lawfully possessed property. When or if it does and any political agenda, it leads to delays more so than with clerical laziness.
Taking a queue from the recent historic search warrant of the ages, items not related to the scope of the search were confiscated. and from what has been learned, the items subject to confiscation where available, accessible and centrally located. In this instance, as with most search warrants, locations and description of items of search are limited. There is no broad ‘this is related to that‘ rule, i.e. “respondent had this napkin in his pocket when this box of letters were put in the closet”. Maybe many of these sort of stunts is for political agenda and “sue me” if we’re wrong, it’s a setup and theatre just for lasting vilification.
Yes, send it off to a higher court to make your case. Money is an object for some. Filing continual motions is a form of legal and political bullying. Surrender a few firearms and take years to pay legal fee is one thing. Reinstating rights of the Second Amendment to replace them and Fourth Amendment to keep them again is another.
Red Flag has to limited beyond to just getting yelled at by an old man. The silliness that come from the elected is not a laughing matter.
This video discussion is an example of RedFlag overreach, but mostly because of lack of the RF legal clarification. The case study is ripe for interpretation which I think will eventually side with the plaintiff who lost property...a costly end result.
Sure, there are scopes of search warrants. The issue of what allegations are made, what probable cause existed and circumstance that lead to entry whether exigent of voluntary are always decided after confiscations. Warrantless seizures under ‘open view’ and film-flam voluntary admission or surrender whilst under a search warrant is being exploited. The bench can and usually returns lawfully possessed property. When or if it does and any political agenda, it leads to delays more so than with clerical laziness.
Taking a queue from the recent historic search warrant of the ages, items not related to the scope of the search were confiscated. and from what has been learned, the items subject to confiscation where available, accessible and centrally located. In this instance, as with most search warrants, locations and description of items of search are limited. There is no broad ‘this is related to that‘ rule, i.e. “respondent had this napkin in his pocket when this box of letters were put in the closet”. Maybe many of these sort of stunts is for political agenda and “sue me” if we’re wrong, it’s a setup and theatre just for lasting vilification.
Yes, send it off to a higher court to make your case. Money is an object for some. Filing continual motions is a form of legal and political bullying. Surrender a few firearms and take years to pay legal fee is one thing. Reinstating rights of the Second Amendment to replace them and Fourth Amendment to keep them again is another.
Red Flag has to limited beyond to just getting yelled at by an old man. The silliness that come from the elected is not a laughing matter.