Quote:We complied with the search warrant. They took my AR,” Mark McCloskey told the conservative Todd Starnes radio show. “I’m absolutely surprised by this.”
Apparently they don't want these folks to be able to defend their home the next time folks break into their grounds.
(07-11-2020, 03:53 PM)treee Wrote: Zooming out a bit and speaking more generally, the gov on all levels has way too much leeway when it comes to confiscating the property of citizens.
Agreed.
If I remember right, Rand Paul introduced a bill earlier this year to reduce or eliminate a lot of seizing not involving a conviction. I didn't pay a lot of attention as I didn't expect it to go anywhere given the potus has said he's for increasing seizing property.
It was just taken as evidence as part of an investigation. If there are no charges he will get it back.
It has nothing to od with keeping them from protecting their property. It has to do with them not being reckless and injuring someone who was zero threat to them or their property.
Not one other person in that entire community pulled a weapon in public and there was zero property damage or injuries.
I don't know enough about the story to know if these people should be charged with anything. If they are not then they should get their guns back.
(07-11-2020, 04:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It was just taken as evidence as part of an investigation. If there are no charges he will get it back.
It has nothing to od with keeping them from protecting their property. It has to do with them not being reckless and injuring someone who was zero threat to them or their property.
Not one other person in that entire community pulled a weapon in public and there was zero property damage or injuries.
I don't know enough about the story to know if these people should be charged with anything. If they are not then they should get their guns back.
I'd consider anyone who broke into my private property to be a little more elevated than "zero threat".
WTS, why the warrant? Why not just say: We need you to surrender your firearm as part of an "investigation"?
To me the optics are bad. Folks break into their private property, they make themselves a "hard target", they get investigated and must surrender the device they use to protect themselves and their property. .
(07-11-2020, 04:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'd consider anyone who broke into my private property to be a little more elevated than "zero threat".
WTS, why the warrant? Why not just say: We need you to surrender your firearm as part of an "investigation"?
To me the optics are bad. Folks break into their private property, they make themselves a "hard target", they get investigated and must surrender the device they use to protect themselves and their property. .
Isn't it interesting how some enclaves of homes are wholly private property, but for most places the sidewalks and roadways aren't?
(07-11-2020, 05:02 PM)treee Wrote: Isn't it interesting how some enclaves of homes are wholly private property, but for most places the sidewalks and roadways aren't?
Not sure I'd find it interesting. I'd assume you have to pay some sort of fee for that privacy.
But there are examples I find interesting. For instance we have a street near me that's a perfect thoroughfare, but there are signs that state "Not a thru street, residents only". Yet, my taxes pay to plow their street in the winter and fix their potholes in the summer. I've always wondered how they are allowed to post such signs.
(07-11-2020, 05:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure I'd find it interesting. I'd assume you have to pay some sort of fee for that privacy.
But there are examples I find interesting. For instance we have a street near me that's a perfect thoroughfare, but there are signs that state "Not a thru street, residents only". Yet, my taxes pay to plow their street in the winter and fix their potholes in the summer. I've always wondered how they are allowed to post such signs.
Well it is not surprising that you find that particular case to be the most interesting; It is more realized due to its locality, less abstract.
(07-11-2020, 04:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not one other person in that entire community pulled a weapon in public and there was zero property damage or injuries.
Except they weren't in "public". they were completely on private property addressing trespassers who entered the property illegally.
Volson is meh, but I like him, and he has far exceeded my expectations
(07-11-2020, 04:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'd consider anyone who broke into my private property to be a little more elevated than "zero threat".
WTS, why the warrant? Why not just say: We need you to surrender your firearm as part of an "investigation"?
To me the optics are bad. Folks break into their private property, they make themselves a "hard target", they get investigated and must surrender the device they use to protect themselves and their property. .
Wouldn't a warrant be necessary to enter a home for part of an investigation?
Had the police or whomever just came in and said "we're taking your guns" without a warrant or proof of an investigation THEN I'd be more inclined to agree with the title of the thread.
Not like they even did a no-knock entry and accidentally killed someone.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-11-2020, 07:02 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Except they weren't in "public". they were completely on private property addressing trespassers who entered the property illegally.
First of all, it is not that simple. The streets do not belong to these specific homeowners. For example, if the mayor was to invite a friend to her home these people could not pull guns on them and make them leave.
Second, you can't just shoot someone for tresspassing.
(07-12-2020, 09:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all, it is not that simple. The streets do not belong to these specific homeowners. For example, if the mayor was to invite a friend to her home these people could not pull guns on them and make them leave.
Second, you can't just shoot someone for tresspassing.
If you read the article about all the lawsuits these two have filed over the years one of them is that they claim to own the piece of land that the marchers were on (or by) despite the HOA saying it is for everyone to use.
Quote:In an ongoing suit against Portland Place trustees in 2017, the McCloskeys say they are entitled to a 1,143-square-foot triangle of lawn in front of property that is set aside as common ground in the neighborhood’s indenture.
It was that patch of green protesters saw when they filed through the gate. Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch before by pointing a gun at a neighbor who had tried to cut through it.
They seem like just WONDERFUL people.
Your anger and ego will always reveal your true self.
(07-12-2020, 09:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all, it is not that simple. The streets do not belong to these specific homeowners. For example, if the mayor was to invite a friend to her home these people could not pull guns on them and make them leave.
Second, you can't just shoot someone for tresspassing.
(07-12-2020, 09:59 AM)GMDino Wrote: If you read the article about all the lawsuits these two have filed over the years one of them is that they claim to own the piece of land that the marchers were on (or by) despite the HOA saying it is for everyone to use.
(07-11-2020, 04:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: WTS, why the warrant? Why not just say: We need you to surrender your firearm as part of an "investigation"?
Because if they did not have a warrant the subjects could have just told them "No" and then gotten rid of the evidence before the authgorities got a warrant.
(07-11-2020, 04:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To me the optics are bad. Folks break into their private property, they make themselves a "hard target", they get investigated and must surrender the device they use to protect themselves and their property. .
To me the optics are bad to pull guns on peacefull protestors, but that is just a matter of indivdual opinion.
I am not saying these people are guilty of anything. We simply do not know all the facts. These people may have made terroristic threats with these weapons or something else we don't know about. Even their own neighbors say they are aggressive assholes.
If they have not broken any laws then they should get their guns back.
(07-12-2020, 10:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Because if they did not have a warrant the subjects could have just told them "No" and then gotten rid of the evidence before the authgorities got a warrant.
To me the optics are bad to pull guns on peacefull protestors, but that is just a matter of indivdual opinion.
I am not saying these people are guilty of anything. We simply do not know all the facts. These people may have made terroristic threats with these weapons or something else we don't know about. Even their own neighbors say they are aggressive assholes.
If they have not broken any laws then they should get their guns back.
This is a huge problem today and the leading reason these protests turn to lawlessness. These folks broke down a gate and entered provate property yet you and other continue to label them as peaceful protestors.
![[Image: bfine-guns2.png]](https://i.ibb.co/YBkDQJV/bfine-guns2.png)
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: oN5QAdY.png]](https://i.imgur.com/oN5QAdY.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
