Guns

[FoolKiller]

That's a fairly self-contradictory article

Could you quote the bits where you find it contradicting itself?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Could you quote the bits where you find it contradicting itself?

It seems to be on the side of Woldjan, accusing the police of forcing him from his vehicle, claiming a 'false search' and then accusing the police of lies or mistruth.

The problem is that it also says he was in-venture with a felon and that he declared a weapon. The police are entitled at that point to confirm that he is in line with his permit, which includes checking the size of the magazine.

It seems to make out that somehow the police acted illegally; but the court don't seem to have found that. The 7-round law in a 10-pop mag was arbitrary and needed to be corrected (and it was) but overall I'm not sure why the article seems so sympathetic to Woldjan given the story it tells. I'm sure he's unhappy to have been caught out committing a crime, but then wouldn't we all be?

Here's the bit I'm unsure of; can you see without emptying that mag if it has 7 bullets or not? My US colleague tells me that in the case of SAFE simply seeing a mag that can hold more than 7 bullets would count as probable cause for a further search but that this is unlikely to apply any longer following the 7-round ratification.

 

[BobK]

Who was this felon that Woldjan was in-venture with? Do you mean his wife, who was stopped for speeding, for crying out loud?

Also, did you miss the part about the law which he was arrested for being in violation of was found to be unconstitutional?

 

[LeMansAid]

@TenEightyOne You might need to see where you end up in the Human Rights thread. It may determine whether or not you agree that some laws are ok to break.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@TenEightyOne You might need to see where you end up in the Human Rights thread. It may determine whether or not you agree that some laws are ok to break.

My view won't change, and in this case it's about actual law rather than the point I'm making on "lack of natural right"... but I fully expect that Danoff is going to mop up with me, I'm enjoying the process though.

On topic; @BobK the evidence suggest she was 50% over the speed limit for the road? You're not suggesting that's a minor offence in a car-sized motor vehicle? That gave police cause to stop the vehicle.

The article claims he was "pulled" from the vehicle (was he arrested at that point? I don't know... but if he was then that would make things very clear). Presuming he wasn't arrested we still don't know what dialogue took place. The devil is in the detail and cops are good at getting people to talk themselves out of their legal rights.

Woldjan declared that he had the weapon and the permit (whatever my views on carrying guns he was in the right, no dispute from me at all)... and at that point the officer was bound to check the size of the magazine.

The article clearly takes a very pro-Woldjan line whilst describing the police actions as "illegal" in terms of recovery of evidence. That wasn't found to be the case and the article (to my mind) damages its credibility when it actually had a reasonably well balanced set of facts to present.

SAFE... the 7-round rule seemed silly, was found to be "arbitrary" (but from memory not unconstitutional, although I will review the judgement tomorrow), and should never have been implemented. That isn't the officer-on-patrol's problem though, she (or he) has to apply the rules on the day.

There's a lot more to this case than is contained in that report and, overall, Woldjan's treatment seems harsh on the balance of available evidence. That doesn't make it illegal or unconstitutional in respect of the arrest citation.

And 44 in a 30 zone, crush the car

 

[LeMansAid]

Some people view owning guns as an inalienable right that supercedes law.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Some people view owning guns as an inalienable right that supercedes law.

Indeed they do! In the US citizens do have a right provided by the Constitution so (at least in cases where gun law is applied) it's academic whether the inalienable right exists any way and if it can supersede democratic rule-of-law.

My own view is that the right was provided in a different time and isn't as relevant now. Do I think the right should be removed? I believe guns should be more strictly controlled but I don't see how that can be done in the US legal framework much more than it is being already.

 

[Beeker1972]

The buyer was 15 years old ... It's illegal to sell a firearm to a person who is under 18 years old, and it was a handgun so nobody can buy, own, and carry a handgun unless they're 21 years old or older. The seller went across State lines that's illegal too ... Taking a firearm onto a public school is illegal unless the person is law enforcement officer. So Stupid people broke a few Federal Laws ...

You can sell guns online, you can't sell guns without going through a federally licensed firearms dealer and performing a background check.

Is the right to exist inalienable? Using a firearm to exercise the right to exist should supersede any law restricting the right to exist.

Some people view owning guns as an inalienable right that supercedes law.

 

[FoolKiller]

On topic; @BobK the evidence suggest she was 50% over the speed limit for the road? You're not suggesting that's a minor offence in a car-sized motor vehicle?

14mph over the speed limit is roughly a $150 fine where I live. Not an excuse to search a vehicle without permission. Even speeding I can refuse to do more than identify myself to the police.

The article claims he was "pulled" from the vehicle (was he arrested at that point? I don't know... but if he was then that would make things very clear). Presuming he wasn't arrested we still don't know what dialogue took place. The devil is in the detail and cops are good at getting people to talk themselves out of their legal rights.

Woldjan declared that he had the weapon and the permit (whatever my views on carrying guns he was in the right, no dispute from me at all)... and at that point the officer was bound to check the size of the magazine.

He broke no laws. We have a right in the US to not have our person or things searched without probable cause. He has a legal permit and gun. They had no legal grounds to search the vehicle or pull out his gun's magazine.

We call it the 4th Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

The article clearly takes a very pro-Woldjan line whilst describing the police actions as "illegal" in terms of recovery of evidence. That wasn't found to be the case and the article (to my mind) damages its credibility when it actually had a reasonably well balanced set of facts to present.

Wut?

Now, was Wojdan guilty by the letter of the law? Yep. Of course the actions of the police officers were clear violations of Wojdan’s 4th Amendment rights and thus dictate that he should never have been arrested in the first place. A viewpoint shared by Lockport City Judge William J Watson who threw out the arrest this passed Wednesday.

It was illegal, which is why the arrest was thrown out by a judge.

But if you want an unbiased report on that court hearing. Here is the local newspaper coverage.

Police officers went too far when they counted the bullets in Paul A. Wojdan’s gun, City Judge William J. Watson ruled Wednesday as he dismissed a charge against Wojdan arising from New York’s SAFE Act.

It was found to be the case.

SAFE... the 7-round rule seemed silly, was found to be "arbitrary" (but from memory not unconstitutional, although I will review the judgement tomorrow), and should never have been implemented.

Here, let me help.
http://www.whec.com/article/stories/s3265192.shtml

The biggest change that comes with this decision is the fact now gun owners can load their magazine clips with up to 10 rounds. The judge ruled the seven-round restriction the Safe Act put in place was unconstitutional.

That isn't the officer-on-patrol's problem though, she (or he) has to apply the rules on the day.

That includes the 4th Amendment. Having a legally owned gun does not create probable cause that the gun was holding an illegal number of bullets.

There's a lot more to this case than is contained in that report and, overall, Woldjan's treatment seems harsh on the balance of available evidence. That doesn't make it illegal or unconstitutional in respect of the arrest citation.

The courts disagreed.

And 44 in a 30 zone, crush the car

Oh lawd, what a horrible world we live in. Boys, get the rope!

Please...



Oh, and nothing you said made the article self-contradictory. It defended one side, even if you think the evidence they presented was incorrect, which they weren't.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Firstly, I hadn't seen the "unconstitutional" part of the Woldjan ruling, only the presentation of it, and I stand corrected on that.

I still say that being pursued by a police car using lights and sirens and then failing to stop for over a mile suggests criminal intent, otherwise why not stop the vehicle as required? The officer was going to be suspicious. That's where we expected the probable-cause to come from, not from the existence of his legally-held-and-documented gun.

The search failure was on a technicality; as you pointed out yourself the officers had to remove the magazine to check the serial number and to ensure that the firing chamber was empty. At that point the officers could see the number of bullets in the magazine without emptying it.

Where they erred was in emptying it, thereby completely invalidating the evidence. That's what the judge ruled was unconstitutional about the search... but he only ruled thus after the SAFE appeal where the original ruling for unconstitutionality was made.

At the time of Woldjan's arrest the officers were acting within their duties within the law as provided to them to uphold, including recovering firearms from vehicles that fail to stop.

EDIT: I should add; once the case was dismissed I feel that he should have had all his property returned to him immediately (or the same day) and been recompensed for any further delay in doing so.

 

[FoolKiller]

I still say that being pursued by a police car using lights and sirens and then failing to stop for over a mile suggests criminal intent, otherwise why not stop the vehicle as required?

Because police and lawyers both will tell you to find a safe place to pull over, preferably with cameras, both for your safety from someone impersonating a police officer and to guarantee there is evidence if the police violate your rights. At 2:00 AM, I wouldn't stop for police immediately if I felt it was too secluded or dark. No explanation for why is given, but police don't assume criminal intent because you made sure you were safe before pulling over. I've driven over a mile when being pulled over for speeding before. I indicate that I see them with my caution lights or turn indicator light and get to where I feel it is safe. Sure, the police might act like an intimidating ass about it, but it is not illegal or probable cause in this country.

The officer was going to be suspicious. That's where we expected the probable-cause to come from, not from the existence of his legally-held-and-documented gun.

The search failure was on a technicality;

Violating the US Constitution is a technicality? Like hell it is. It gets done far too often in the name of safety in this country. I am glad the police lost the case in court. I wish they were reprimanded.

Even if it was just a "technicality," why the hell does that seem to mean the government just had the right to do what they did, but the lawyer tricked tricked the court? We have rights, legal and otherwise, and technicality or not, the police can't violate them.

Where they erred was in emptying it, thereby completely invalidating the evidence. That's what the judge ruled was unconstitutional about the search... but he only ruled thus after the SAFE appeal where the original ruling for unconstitutionality was made.

The ruling was the search was unconstitutional, as they were still pursuing the case after the bullet restriction ruling, and the court motion was about an illegal search. A motion, I should add, made in October, two months before the bullet restriction ruling. It was about the search. The DA clearly didn't think the changed law mattered, or he would have dropped the charges in December.

At the time of Woldjan's arrest the officers were acting within their duties within the law as provided to them to uphold, including recovering firearms from vehicles that fail to stop.

Yet, the judge disagreed. Are you now saying the judge is wrong? I mean by your law makes right argument, the judge determined the law protecting Wojdan's rights was violated by police actions.



And this all disregards the point of my post. The backstory is done, the article was accurate, and your point has no base as the judge thinks otherwise.

The bigger point was, if the police know you have guns they can take them, without cause. The bullet restriction violation had nothing to do with his other guns, but they took them. And after charges are dropped his attorney still has to pursue legal means to get them back. At this point, as laws and charges stand, the police have confiscated and are holding the legally-owned guns of a man that has done nothing wrong, and they never had anything to do with the law they were charging him with violating. Those guns should never have been taken to begin with and should have been given to him as soon as the charges were tossed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

.Violating the US Constitution is a technicality? Like hell it is. It gets done far too often in the name of safety in this country. I am glad the police lost the case in court. I wish they were reprimanded.

Even if it was just a "technicality,"...

Woah, a technicality because they could already see he had more than 7 rounds in the magazine, what they shouldn't have done was remove them immediately and count them. That wasn't ruled against at the time (the SAFE appeal verdict hadn't been handed down then). Woldjan's lawyers worked up to the SAFE ruling in order that they might be able to take advantage of it and indeed they were able to.

The officers were upholding the law as it was presented to them and as they and the state believed was valid. They are not to blame for it later being ruled to be unconstitutional.

I'll accept the argument that in a country where one feels they need to be filmed in order to protect them from the police that it might take two cars (as in this case) to eventually stop them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Woah, a technicality because they could already see he had more than 7 rounds in the magazine, what they shouldn't have done was remove them immediately and count them. That wasn't ruled against at the time (the SAFE appeal verdict hadn't been handed down then). Woldjan's lawyers worked up to the SAFE ruling in order that they might be able to take advantage of it and indeed they were able to.

Because it wasn't in court at the time. Do you think the day after the arrest his attorney made the motion and got shut down, and then they tried again after the SAFE Act ruling? Courts move slower than that. It wasn't ruled that way at the time because the motion wasn't heard in a court at the time. Did the lawyer get a bonus by the SAFE Act ruling? Sure, but Wojdan should have been released immediately then, not had to have a judge rule improper search (which is what the motion was).

The officers were upholding the law as it was presented to them and as they and the state believed was valid. They are not to blame for it later being ruled to be unconstitutional.

Did you read the part about how the city put out new notices and training to their cops on how to properly enforce the SAFE Act. They apparently don't understand the law, as they're being trained on it now because of this case. Defend them all you want. The judge ruled against them for violating Wojdan's rights.

I'll accept the argument that in a country where one feels they need to be filmed in order to protect them from the police that it might take two cars (as in this case) to eventually stop them.

Having my fair share of speeding tickets, a second officer will always stop when they know there is a traffic stop nearby. In one instance, the cop just had a witness to seem him give a sober guy, driving a drunk friend home, a field sobriety test and look like an idiot. General rule in Bowling a green, KY: don't drive out of a bar's parking lot, no matter how sober you are. It's apparently probable cause.

Let me say it again, many, many speeding tickets to my name in my youth. A second cop always showed up, if they weren't there to begin with. The few exceptions were in rural ares with no second cop in range.

 

[GTsail]

****
The bigger point was, if the police know you have guns they can take them, without cause. The bullet restriction violation had nothing to do with his other guns, but they took them. And after charges are dropped his attorney still has to pursue legal means to get them back. At this point, as laws and charges stand, the police have confiscated and are holding the legally-owned guns of a man that has done nothing wrong, and they never had anything to do with the law they were charging him with violating. Those guns should never have been taken to begin with and should have been given to him as soon as the charges were tossed.

Yeah, I don't understand why the police were able to confiscate the other guns. And they certainly should return them now since the case has been dropped.

I just read thru the NY SAFE Act, and I don't see any clause that says the police can confiscate all of someone's guns if a person violates the 7 bullet limit on one gun. I was thinking that maybe the law might have said something like: "If perp violates 7 round limit then all other weapons are forfeit", but I didn't find anything that seemed to imply this. Mostly the SAFE Act has clauses that seem to relate to domestic violence (and assault weapon definitions). If this case was a domestic violence case with court orders etc, then I could see where there might be restrictions on any additional weapons, but as it relates to a passenger in a car pulled over for speeding, I just don't see it.

The NY Safe Act has a section that says:
"The Court (may) shall, where the Court finds a substantial risk that the respondent may use or threaten to use a firearm unlawfully against the person or persons for whose protection the temporary order of protection is issued, suspend any such existing license possessed by the respondent, order the respondent ineligible for such a license, and order the immediate surrender *** of any or all firearms owned or possessed." But this seems to relate to domestic violence situations or stalking cases.

Maybe if Wojdan and his wife were shooting mailboxes/road signs from the speeding car, then I could see the confiscation of additional weapons after the initial stop.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[TenEightyOne]

The NY Safe Act has a section that says:
"The Court (may) shall, where the Court finds a substantial risk that the respondent may use or threaten to use a firearm unlawfully against the person or persons for whose protection the temporary order of protection is issued, suspend any such existing license possessed by the respondent, order the respondent ineligible for such a license, and order the immediate surrender *** of any or all firearms owned or possessed." But this seems to relate to domestic violence situations or stalking cases.

I think that's the stated amendment to the Family Law Act? Some of SAFE isn't self-contained, it modifies/dovetails other Acts.

Earlier it says something similar but in regards to breaking any part of SAFE itself. I think the state was justified in taking the weapons according to its understanding of the law at the time.

I don't see why they shouldn't have returned them immediately upon Woldjan's full acquittal.

 

[FoolKiller]

Earlier it says something similar but in regards to breaking any part of SAFE itself. I think the state was justified in taking the weapons according to its understanding of the law at the time.

Mind explaining how it could reasonably be misunderstood in that way? How did a gun with 3-too-many bullets in his wife's car justify a confiscation of all his weapons in his home, miles away, by a misunderstanding?

If we can excuse the people whose job it is to uphold the law from not understanding it, what prevents them from falling back on that excuse when they abuse it? Their job is to properly understand the job. If you screw up at your job is it just excused? And does you screwing up violate people's rights?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Mind explaining how it could reasonably be misunderstood in that way? How did a gun with 3-too-many bullets in his wife's car justify a confiscation of all his weapons in his home, miles away, by a misunderstanding?

If we can excuse the people whose job it is to uphold the law from not understanding it, what prevents them from falling back on that excuse when they abuse it? Their job is to properly understand the job. If you screw up at your job is it just excused? And does you screwing up violate people's rights?

Because the law allowed the removal of all weapons on the licence if a term of the licence was breached. Having too many rounds in the mag (which he did) breached the licence (which isn't the cops' job to argue the law on, just to serve) and his guns were removed.

That seems reasonable to me in that very narrow scope (regardless of later judgements regarding the poor intent of the law iteself), what seems utterly unreasonable is that on his acquittal he's been further penalised by having his property with-held.

The cops didn't screw up any more than you or I screw up if we sell tins of beans all day at 40p only to be told they should have been 50p but we got the wrong instructions through.

We still don't know the dialogue that took place at the roadside; it's normal for an "illegal search" motion to be brought to the court (law 101, wipe out as much evidence as you can) but in this case it was never heard - the case was dismissed because it was heard after the SAFE appeal had declared it unconstitutional.

 

[FoolKiller]

Because the law allowed the removal of all weapons on the licence if a term of the licence was breached. Having too many rounds in the mag (which he did) breached the licence (which isn't the cops' job to argue the law on, just to serve) and his guns were removed.

Finally, we bring this full circle. I thought you would never get here.

And this is why a gun registry is a bad idea. They can create any excuse they want to take your guns, and they know where to go to get them. Without a registry or other kind of official listing of your guns they can't try to confiscate your guns.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Finally, we bring this full circle. I thought you would never get here.

And this is why a gun registry is a bad idea. They can create any excuse they want to take your guns, and they know where to go to get them. Without a registry or other kind of official listing of your guns they can't try to confiscate your guns.

It's a gun, something that only exists to remove life or liberty, which is covered in the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is offset by the duty of ratified states to ensure domestic tranquility and a common defense.

Why shouldn't they take your guns? Or know where to get them? America is a civilized society, no?

 

[Zenith]

It's a gun, something that only exists to remove life or liberty...

This again? No, god please no. No. No. NO.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This again? No, god please no. No. No. NO.

Hehe, only my opinion and one I'm well prepared to debate. I'm also well prepared for the fact that many people like to skip the preamble and get straight to the amendments. And that they plum don't agree with me, it's cool

They don't only exist to remove life or liberty? What do they exist for? Because rolling a sock up is cheaper, you know

 

[FoolKiller]

It's a gun, something that only exists to remove life or liberty,

Aka you know nothing about guns.

which is covered in the Bill of Rights. The right to bear arms is offset by the duty of ratified states to ensure domestic tranquility and a common defense.

Oh, yes, we must sacrifice liberty for safety.

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Why shouldn't they take your guns? Or know where to get them?

Because some politicians and scared old women go all "Take the guns!!!" crazy every time a single, mentally disturbed person kills people.

We should not run scared, we should not hide from bogeymen, and we shouldn't be willing to hand over liberty for fears.

America is a civilized society, no?

Yes, one who fought a war to become a nation. A war where the starting action was the government confiscating guns.

So, my fears aren't due to paranoia, but that it has happened here, and in many other countries. Take away the ability of the people to defend themselves and it is that much easier to oppress them.

 

[Zenith]

Hehe, only my opinion and one I'm well prepared to debate. I'm also well prepared for the fact that many people like to skip the preamble and get straight to the amendments. And that they plum don't agree with me, it's cool

They don't only exist to remove life or liberty? What do they exist for? Because rolling a sock up is cheaper, you know

I'm sure you are. So were other people who tried to defend that point unsuccessfully. Turns out they weren't.

Start here. You can also find this discussion in this thread and pretty much any other GTP thread with a subject related to guns.

This has been discussed too many times. It's a real waste of people's time to have to hash this out over and over.

 

[TenEightyOne]

This has been discussed too many times. It's a real waste of people's time to have to hash this out over and over.

Then the moderators will close the discussion or shut me up and, with respectful apologies, I'll desist. My questioning arose from a case that was recently discussed, and I've read the whole thread. If you feel you're wasting your time then you should make your own decision about whether to continue.

Aka you know nothing about guns.

So inform me, what other uses are there?

Because some politicians and scared old women go all "Take the guns!!!" crazy every time a single, mentally disturbed person kills people.

That seems equally hysterical a reaction.

Oh, yes, we must sacrifice liberty for safety.

Sarcasm understood, but does that mean you think liberty means you can carry a gun... or does the bullet's recipent's loss of liberty outweigh that?

Yes, one who fought a war to become a nation. A war where the starting action was the government confiscating guns.

Ouch, really the starting action was the systematic annihilation of the indigenous people, but I think you're talking about the Civil War... weren't you already a nation by then? Pedantry aside, I don't recall the Bill of Rights being used before a court to support argument in defense of gun ownership until the 1930s but I may well be wrong, I'll have a better look tomorrow.

I support your right to carry a gun because it is supported by law. I don't support it morally but because I believe in democratic rule of law I defend your right. That doesn't mean I won't debate it though, you clearly hold strong views as do I.

I personally don't believe that the currently implemented interpretation supports the intent of the Constitution and I think inappropriate considerations of English and contemporary texts are sometimes used to justify it. I think that the world has changed and that countries like Russia and America where the citizens genuinely fear the armed power of their government are lagging behind in really working towards a world social ideal.

I know, you'd shoot me if you were sure I'd drop across the state line

 

[Zenith]

Then the moderators will close the discussion or shut me up and, with respectful apologies, I'll desist. My questioning arose from a case that was recently discussed, and I've read the whole thread. If you feel you're wasting your time then you should make your own decision about whether to continue.

So inform me, what other uses are there?

If you're not going to bother reading the discussion(s) where your point is disproved, why would anyone bother trying them out again?

 

[TenEightyOne]

If you're not going to bother reading the discussion(s) where your point is disproved, why would anyone bother trying them out again?

Did you read my point? How would you disprove it?

 

[Zenith]

Did you read my point? How would you disprove it?

Your point:

It's a gun, something that only exists to remove life or liberty,

... is disproven here.

To suggest that a gun's purpose is to shoot someone is to suggest that anyone who's ever used a gun to shoot a target or an animal - or never shoot at all - has misused the gun.

The intention of a gun is as a remote force multiplier tool. It's a hammer that acts "over there". The force it generates is so great that it can be used against a person - but so can a hammer - if required and multiple law enforcement agencies have determined it's the most convenient tool for that job. It's also so precise that multiple international law enforcement agencies have determined it's the most convenient tool for that job too, despite much bigger force multipliers being available.

The purpose of a gun is not to put a bullet into a person.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Your point:... is disproven here.

Is you mad? I think you misquoted Famine or misread what I wrote?

 

[Zenith]

Is you mad? I think you misquoted Famine or misread what I wrote?

Not even slightly. What you wrote is that guns exist only to remove life or liberty. I use my guns often. They have never ended a life. How have they removed life or liberty?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not even slightly. What you wrote is that guns exist only to remove life or liberty. I use my guns often. They have never ended a life. How have they removed life or liberty?

I didn't see Famine addressing that, I saw that he'd answered the argument that "guns put bullets into people", and quite rightly so. That would be a fallacious argument.

I'm interested in you seeming to feel that you might be the reason that guns exist? I'd say that you have guns because they exist. Why do they exist in the first place? I've owned firearms that had never been (and would never be) used at all, that doesn't alter the reason for the existence of firearms.

So why do you think they exist?