NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, here's some back story. As some of you may know, I have a roommate, an apartment(which is somewhat messy on the best days) and I own a firearm (which some of my neighbors know about). Anyway, about 1 month ago, my roommate and one of my neighbor's oldest son had an altercation. I wasn't involved or there to witness it, but my roommate told me it was the neighbor's fault. We have very little interaction with these neighbors under normal circumstances, and after this happened, we took great pains to further avoid them. Well, at approximately 10:30 last night, while I was attempting to get some sleep, the Connecticut State Police knocked down the door to my apartment. They had a warrant to seize any firearms in the apartment, and for approximately 2 hours proceeded to tear my place apart in the process. For what reason? Because my roommate (who doesn't have access my rifle) apparently poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or to others (after an unspecified independent investigation). The law that allows them to do this is is CGS 29-38c (see here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/olr/htm/2001-r-0896.htm). Supposedly a hearing is required to be held within 14 days, but knowing my luck, it could possibly be delayed for months. If I lose at the hearing, they could hold my rifle for a year, all while no crime has been committed.

What I want to know is, why the hell did they take MY rifle? My roommate does not have the combination to my gun safe, the combination to the lock on the gun case, or the key to the trigger lock. Is this a breach of my 2nd and 4th amendment civil rights, as I'm not even a party to this incident? I have to wait until the morning to contact a lawyer (as I don't have one on retainer), but I have been on the phone with my uncle, who is a police officer.

Another question (to avoid people yelling, "Get a blog"), do you agree with a law that allows the seizure of property without a crime being committed? NSG legal eagles, feel free to comment.

ETA: Here's a CNN article on the subject as well: http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/02/gun.seizures/

I have NO idea about the legality of Conn. law and how it might apply, though assumingly I think that your say so that you would not lend your firearm to a friend might not hold a whole lot of water in terms of prevention.

As for removing firearms from those fairly (keyword there) judged to be a danger to themselves and others, I think it's a damn good idea and one that might prevent a lot of hurt when someone whom people have been worried about decides to go postal.

But how that would apply to a roommate's property is a very grey issue.

I have NO idea about the legality of Conn. law and how it might apply, though assumingly I think that your say so that you would not lend your firearm to a friend might not hold a whole lot of water in terms of prevention.

As for removing firearms from those fairly (keyword there) judged to be a danger to themselves and others, I think it's a damn good idea and one that might prevent a lot of hurt when someone whom people have been worried about decides to go postal.

But how that would apply to a roommate's property is a very grey issue.

The thing is, neither of us were fairly judged. We didn't get a chance to defend ourselves, as there is no standards (that I can find) for the "independent investigation" in how it comes to its decision. So now I have to wait until the hearing, and delay my plan to go shooting at the range this weekend with some of my friends.

Well, if they had a warrant, then no, your rights were not violated.

The 2nd amendment is a very fuzzy issue in and of itself, but they are not challenging your right to own a firearm. Apparently a threat (your roommate) exists according to whatever evidence was brought before the issuing magistrate, because of the warrant they do have a right to search your home to remove any potential threat to himself, yourself, or others which does not violate the 4th amendment.

Your chance to defend yourself will come at the hearing.

My best guess is that the neighbors filed a complaint and the police came in to remove the potential for a threat, even if your roommate does not have the combos to any of the locked firearms equipment, they have to account for the possibility (because they do not know) that he might have the combos or have a way to break into your firearm equipment. Due to these circumstances, no rights were violated and you can argue your case and most likely retrieve your firearms after the hearing.

The thing is, neither of us were fairly judged. We didn't get a chance to defend ourselves, as there is no standards (that I can find) for the "independent investigation" in how it comes to its decision. So now I have to wait until the hearing, and delay my plan to go shooting at the range this weekend with some of my friends.
Hmm... I'm not sure you have a point to stand on there for IIRC, a judge issuing the warrant has to be satisfied that propabale cause is met. Normally that does not involve asking the target of the warrant to explain things as said targets have a regretable tendency to run home and hide whatever it is that the police were looking for.

Your chance to defend yourselves would be at the hearing itself when the cause would then be debated as fact or not. (Not a laywer and am expecting a smacking from Neo art or Cat Tribes when they show up).

Oh yeah, Hot Naked Young Chicks here (That's what's needed to get Neo Art into a thread as per Superman II).

I'm not going to tell you to get a blog. I know this is an important issue to you, you've always been very decent on this subject even though it gets hot sometimes. I think it's OK for a regular poster to want to talk about those rare events like this where something unexpected hits them for six (out of the ballpark?).

What I want to know is, why the hell did they take MY rifle? My roommate does not have the combination to my gun safe, the combination to the lock on the gun case, or the key to the trigger lock.

I'm not one of the "legal eagle"s. But I will say: how does the law know that? They don't have anything but your word for it that you didn't share all those things with your flatmate.

Is this a breach of my 2nd and 4th amendment civil rights, as I'm not even a party to this incident? I have to wait until the morning to contact a lawyer (as I don't have one on retainer), but I have been on the phone with my uncle, who is a police officer.

Was he any help? I'm guessing he said something like "Constitutional rights aren't your best line of defence, at least not yet, this is a state law and gee, some of these new laws ..."

Good luck with it. Consider that your flatmate might be really at fault (eg threatening the neighbour's son) and maybe isn't telling you all that happened.

And the obvious advice: don't do anything (talk to neighbours ... even perhaps the flatmate) until you've talked to a lawyer (and I mean a real lawyer not an internet one, anything you say here could probably be subpoena'd. You want attorney/client privilege).

Uh, that sounds awfully like "shut up now" doesn't it? Sorry about that, but it might actually be sound advice. Get a night's sleep, be sharp for the lawyer.

Hmm... I'm not sure you have a point to stand on there for IIRC, a judge issuing the warrant has to be satisfied that propabale cause is met. Normally that does not involve asking the target of the warrant to explain things as said targets have a regretable tendency to run home and hide whatever it is that the police were looking for.

Your chance to defend yourselves would be at the hearing itself when the cause would then be debated as fact or not. (Not a laywer and am expecting a smacking from Neo art or Cat Tribes when they show up).

Oh yeah, Hot Naked Young Chicks here (That's what's needed to get Neo Art into a thread as per Superman II).

Trust me, I wouldn't have been able to hide my rifle, the way they trashed my apartment (I'll be cleaning for days). They could have asked my roommate for his side of the story (involving the original incident), though.

I would have to agree that your rights were violated, as far as the second amendment goes. However, your fourth amendment rights were not violated, as the police produced (you did witness it and get a copy, right?) a valid search warrant for the items seized.

I am strongly of the opinion that any law which seizes property without at least a full hearing before a judge is, in fact, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, I don't know enough law to know whether this has been tested by the Supreme Court.

I'm not going to tell you to get a blog. I know this is an important issue to you, you've always been very decent on this subject even though it gets hot sometimes. I think it's OK for a regular poster to want to talk about those rare events like this where something unexpected hits them for six (out of the ballpark?).



I'm not one of the "legal eagle"s. But I will say: how does the law know that? They don't have anything but your word for it that you didn't share all those things with your flatmate.



Was he any help? I'm guessing he said something like "Constitutional rights aren't your best line of defence, at least not yet, this is a state law and gee, some of these new laws ..."

Good luck with it. Consider that your flatmate might be really at fault (eg threatening the neighbour's son) and maybe isn't telling you all that happened.

And the obvious advice: don't do anything (talk to neighbours ... even perhaps the flatmate) until you've talked to a lawyer (and I mean a real lawyer not an internet one, anything you say here could probably be subpoena'd. You want attorney/client privilege).

Uh, that sounds awfully like "shut up now" doesn't it? Sorry about that, but it might actually be sound advice. Get a night's sleep, be sharp for the lawyer.

My uncle pretty much told me to get a lawyer as quick as possible, to make sure I have my paperwork regarding my rifle (to prove I bought it legally, and to verify the serial number), and to let him know if I need a loan for the lawyer.

Get a new housemate...

If your other one results in police searching your house for firearms then you obviously have a problem... I'm pretty sure most lease agreements would have something along those lines... or an excuse thereabouts...

Otherwise, I agree, don't say any more about it, get a lawyer... I barely know Australian law, and have no idea on American law, but yeah...

Trust me, I wouldn't have been able to hide my rifle, the way they trashed my apartment (I'll be cleaning for days). They could have asked my roommate for his side of the story (involving the original incident), though.
They may have, they may just have not id'd themselves as police. Do you have the copy of the warrant? IIRC, that is supposed to list any and all complaints and causes as to the reason why said warrant is served.

They may have, they may just have not id'd themselves as police. Do you have the copy of the warrant? IIRC, that is supposed to list any and all complaints and causes as to the reason why said warrant is served.

According to the warrant, my roommate threatened to kill my neighbor's son (which doesn't sound like something he'd say). The warrant says the threat was witnessed by 2 other people (under 18, so their names aren't listed) not related to the son.

According to the warrant, my roommate threatened to kill my neighbor's son (which doesn't sound like something he'd say). The warrant says the threat was witnessed by 2 other people (under 18, so their names aren't listed) not related to the son.

To be fair though, you were not thare. He may have said that in anger and the guy took it seriously.

According to the warrant, my roommate threatened to kill my neighbor's son (which doesn't sound like something he'd say). The warrant says the threat was witnessed by 2 other people (under 18, so their names aren't listed) not related to the son.
I can't pull up the orginal law right now for some reason, but if it was heard and witnessed, that does sound like a threat and cause for the warrant. I think your friend is going to have to get a good lawyer for his defence. I think your side of it should be easier though as it was your firearm and not his and perhaps you could prove to the court that he cannot access it. That might be enough to get the court to return it to you.

I live in the UK. I was brought up on a farm where the use of a shotgun was essential for vermin etc. When I married and had a family I worried about the presence of guns in my house and after soul searching I disposed of them. I am not anti-gun, but I do not understand the American obsession to own guns.
As a lawyer of many years I believe I understand the meaning of civil rights. Your constitutional rights may have been interfered with. I would, however, question why you consider it necessary to have a potentially lethal device in your home in the first place. With rights come responsibilities.
I fully understand that my British viewpoint may not resonate with US sensibilities but there is a view on this side of the pond that no person has an absolute right to bear arms.

I live in the UK. I was brought up on a farm where the use of a shotgun was essential for vermin etc. When I married and had a family I worried about the presence of guns in my house and after soul searching I disposed of them. I am not anti-gun, but I do not understand the American obsession to own guns.
As a lawyer of many years I believe I understand the meaning of civil rights. Your constitutional rights may have been interfered with. I would, however, question why you consider it necessary to have a potentially lethal device in your home in the first place. With rights come responsibilities.
I fully understand that my British viewpoint may not resonate with US sensibilities but there is a view on this side of the pond that no person has an absolute right to bear arms.

I'm hoping this won't turn into a gun control debate.

I own a firearm to target shoot with (it is a sport I enjoy). The reason I use a firearm for that purpose is because it propels the bullets farther and more accurately than I can throw them.

Your roommate isn't telling you everything. I worked with a case much like this in Pennsylvania. There are a lot of particulars that you would need to go over, but I would assume there is a police report, as this was caused by a particular incident. You may have a good case, or none at all. I don't really like posters on here assuming one way or another, as you didn't give us enough information. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who practices in your state, or I'd give them a call for you. I will tell you that local and state police get gun issues wrong all the time. I just dealt with a guy who got pulled over and had a gun shoved in his face, just because he mentioned that he was carrying his legally concealed weapon. You can imagine how that turned out. I'd be interested to know what happens. Keep us updated.

Another question (to avoid people yelling, "Get a blog"), do you agree with a law that allows the seizure of property without a crime being committed? NSG legal eagles, feel free to comment.

ETA: Here's a CNN article on the subject as well: http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/02/gun.seizures/
The biggest asset seizure campaign is certainly the "war on drugs". All of it unconstitutional in my uneducated opinion. But it certainly shows that the government can do pretty much what it wants, when it wants, and make your life hell, while you're trying to undo their wrongs.

Good luck. Call the NRA. If you're not a member, JOIN.

Is this a breach of my 2nd and 4th amendment civil rights, as I'm not even a party to this incident? I have to wait until the morning to contact a lawyer (as I don't have one on retainer), but I have been on the phone with my uncle, who is a police officer.

Yes

Another question (to avoid people yelling, "Get a blog"), do you agree with a law that allows the seizure of property without a crime being committed? NSG legal eagles, feel free to comment.

No I do not not agree.

I'm hoping this won't turn into a gun control debate.

I own a firearm to target shoot with (it is a sport I enjoy). The reason I use a firearm for that purpose is because it propels the bullets farther and more accurately than I can throw them.
Guess it's time to start working on that 2700 fps fastball.

Your roommate isn't telling you everything. I worked with a case much like this in Pennsylvania. There are a lot of particulars that you would need to go over, but I would assume there is a police report, as this was caused by a particular incident. You may have a good case, or none at all. I don't really like posters on here assuming one way or another, as you didn't give us enough information. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone who practices in your state, or I'd give them a call for you. I will tell you that local and state police get gun issues wrong all the time. I just dealt with a guy who got pulled over and had a gun shoved in his face, just because he mentioned that he was carrying his legally concealed weapon. You can imagine how that turned out. I'd be interested to know what happens. Keep us updated.

Also though, if there was a police report, they should have included his roommate's statements in it.

If you want to go target shooting I have no problem with that. I am not anti-gun. What I do have a problem with is that you have guns in your home. I sold my guns because I worried about my kids getting hold of them, even if the guns were in a safe place under lock and key.
Could you not have joined a gun club and left your guns there in a safe environment? I race cars, not on the open road, but on a track, under controlled conditions. Guns in the home are a recipe for disaster. You, as a responsible person may never have any problems, but there are those who are weak, insecure, or unbalanced, who should not have the opportunity to have access to a gun.

If you want to go target shooting I have no problem with that. I am not anti-gun. What I do have a problem with is that you have guns in your home. I sold my guns because I worried about my kids getting hold of them, even if the guns were in a safe place under lock and key.
Could you not have joined a gun club and left your guns there in a safe environment? I race cars, not on the open road, but on a track, under controlled conditions. Guns in the home are a recipe for disaster. You, as a responsible person may never have any problems, but there are those who are weak, insecure, or unbalanced, who should not have the opportunity to have access to a gun.

1) if you want a gun control debate, take it elsewhere.

2) If you teach your kids about guns at an early age, the risks of accidents go way way down.

3) This is not a gun control debate.

1) if you want a gun control debate, take it elsewhere.

3) This is not a gun control debate.

That's actually up for debate :p If people want it to, they CAN change this into a gun control debate and it Wouldn't be vastly off-topic.

If you want to go target shooting I have no problem with that. I am not anti-gun. What I do have a problem with is that you have guns in your home. I sold my guns because I worried about my kids getting hold of them, even if the guns were in a safe place under lock and key.
Could you not have joined a gun club and left your guns there in a safe environment? I race cars, not on the open road, but on a track, under controlled conditions. Guns in the home are a recipe for disaster. You, as a responsible person may never have any problems, but there are those who are weak, insecure, or unbalanced, who should not have the opportunity to have access to a gun.

Gun clubs in the US (at least, the ones I've been to) do not store firearms for its members. And I have no children to worry about.

Guess it's time to start working on that 2700 fps fastball.

3100 FPS, actually. My rifle is .223/5.56 mm, and I shoot 55 grain projectiles.

Get a new housemate...

If your other one results in police searching your house for firearms then you obviously have a problem... I'm pretty sure most lease agreements would have something along those lines... or an excuse thereabouts...

Otherwise, I agree, don't say any more about it, get a lawyer... I barely know Australian law, and have no idea on American law, but yeah...Might not be his fault though. Might be jackass neighbors.

Might not be his fault though. Might be jackass neighbors.

We have had a few complaints to the rental office about them leaving stuff at the bottom of the stairs before (these are our downstairs neighbors).

We have had a few complaints to the rental office about them leaving stuff at the bottom of the stairs before (these are our downstairs neighbors).Yeah, my grandmother's been in court a lot on account of her neighbor. All completely unwarranted and made up. I'd imagine that having to swear an oath doesn't really deter all that much, so it's a good possibility (from what I've read) that the entire story is exaggerated or made up to right some (possibly even imagined) wrong your roomie inflicted on your neighbors.

EDIT:
As to the violation of rights: It appears to me that the court had the choice between erring on behalf of your rights against unwarranted search and seizure and the boy's right to life. In essence, I don't think your rights were violated unnecessarily, from the standpoint of the court, seeing as your word may not necessarily be convincing enough to avoid preventative measures. However, unless there is serious doubt as to whether your roommate has no access to the gun and that you aren't going to give it to them, the court should have to return it.
I'm sure there's some precedents out there that you could look into.

My uncle pretty much told me to get a lawyer as quick as possible, to make sure I have my paperwork regarding my rifle (to prove I bought it legally, and to verify the serial number), and to let him know if I need a loan for the lawyer.

You made the right call.

When you meet the lawyer (and your uncle is right, don't go cheap on that) you want to have all the events clear in your head. It's in your own interests to tell your lawyer all the facts you know.

So you want to have the facts nice and clear in your mind. You don't want to be ranting on about your second amendment rights, that's stuff they learnt years ago and it will cost you by the minute (or fifteen minutes or whatever).

So, get some sleep tonight. That really is my advice. You can check in to NSG when you get up, see if some of our resident law students have dug up anything useful.

In the meantime, we'll have a jolly old 2nd Amendment mud-wrestle. Don't stay up for it, that will only distract you from your immediate problem, which is a legal problem. Details can cost you, don't aim for the big picture just yet. Don't fight gnats with a sledgehammer!

Get some sleep. In the morning, make some more calls and find the best lawyer for your case, which you can afford. Call the lawyer, make an appointment. Check this thread. Don't forget to eat. Talk to the lawyer. It really is important to be clear in your mind about the facts, to give you sound advice they need the best information you can provide.

Please don't stay up all night, looking for consolation on NSG. It will all be there in the morning. Get some sleep.

I'm hoping this won't turn into a gun control debate.

Meh. The on-topic stuff will still be there. Your OP was pretty plain, the "legal eagles" will come through for you. Don't wait up. It will be there.

========

The biggest asset seizure campaign is certainly the "war on drugs". All of it unconstitutional in my uneducated opinion. But it certainly shows that the government can do pretty much what it wants, when it wants, and make your life hell, while you're trying to undo their wrongs.

Good luck. Call the NRA. If you're not a member, JOIN.

You really are a lead act. Indeed, the presumption that a person who sold drugs owes all their assets to selling drugs is a "presumption of guilt," quite contrary to the presumption of innocence. We have the same law in Australia ... following the US precedent, and damn whether it's constitutional, no minor party will speak against it for fear of being labelled "soft on drugs." It's just theft, to the government treasury. And the losers are criminals already -- who will speak for them?

I totally disagree with both you and GM on a "right to own guns." But that can wait -- it should wait. Our mate has specific legal issues to deal with, not an abstract debate ...

To the OP:

Do you have some problems breathing or eating while your gun is away?

Man, a month without a gun...

How are you going to make it? Perhaps the yakuza and the rusian mafia were waiting for this moment to assault your home. After all, you are defenseless now.

To the OP:

Do you have some problems breathing or eating while your gun is away?

Man, a month without a gun...

How are you going to make it? Perhaps the yakuza and the rusian mafia were waiting for this moment to assault your home. After all, you are defenseless now.Be fair, it is interfering with plans he had on using the gun.

I have already said I am not anti-gun.
I simply do not know why it is necessary to keep guns in the home.
In the present case, I surmise that a threat was made to the neighbour and the neighbour reported the matter to the police. If the police took no action, they would rightly be criticised if something further happened when a gun was used.
With the right to own a gun comes a responsibility. The police may have over-reached their rights in the manner of seizure, but it is surely better to err on the side of safety. The right to life should come before any other right.

To the OP:

Do you have some problems breathing or eating while your gun is away?

Man, a month without a gun...

How are you going to make it? Perhaps the yakuza and the rusian mafia were waiting for this moment to assault your home. After all, you are defenseless now.

It's a matter of me being denied my personal property, for something I didn't do. It's also a matter of not being able to go somewhere and do something with my friends, because I'm the only one that owns the proper equipment to partake in the activity (the friends I was going to take to the range have never fired a firearm before, let alone own one). I'd feel the same way if it was my computer they took, or my TV, or my R/C cars.

Do you have some problem with posting an opinion, without your size 10 Doc Martins on your size 5 feet ?

Care to explain that?

Shut the fuck up.

And how have you planned to enforce that suggestion that exactly, calling a moderator?

I would suggest you to chill out, and produce something more imaginative or creative with your grey matter

Care to explain that?

To you? No.

*spits*

It's a matter of me being denied my personal property, for something I didn't do. It's also a matter of not being able to go somewhere and do something with my friends, because I'm the only one that owns the proper equipment to partake in the activity (the friends I was going to take to the range have never fired a firearm before, let alone own one). I'd feel the same way if it was my computer they took, or my TV, or my R/C cars.

My point is, that if you own something that can have legal consequences and/or complications, as a gun, you need to be aware that this kind of thing can happen. The problems a gun can generate cannot be related to a computer or a TV.

I think you are right, as long everything you told was true, and that everything will be solved in your favor in the end, but I can't see the big problem with them taking your gun away in a temporary way.

To not be able to make a recreational activity for some time until a particular legal issue is solved, is not that big of a tragedy.

To you? No.

*spits*

Have a problem at anger management or something?

Quite a gentleman.

3100 FPS, actually. My rifle is .223/5.56 mm, and I shoot 55 grain projectiles.

[aside]
Don't you find that 55 gr is a little light for longer ranges? I load 80 gr Sierra Matchkings for my 600 and 1000 yard ammo. I really like the 69 gr Matchkings for 200 and 300 yards.

I like their 180 gr for my Garand.

Do you buy or load?

Oh joy, Gov. Co. strikes again. Your room mate and a neighbor gets into a fight and not only are the police called in, but they seize your guns for a "preventive" measure. Hell genius, if his room mate wants a gun bad enough he can always go BUY ONE!

I hate Preventive Measures, because all they do (for the most part) is delay the inevitable.

Hell genius, if his room mate wants a gun bad enough he can always go BUY ONE!That's a pretty dumb argument.

That's a pretty dumb argument.

Ok and...

Re the OP's problem:

In my opinion, you got caught in one of those chaotic messes that people create when they just can't get over themselves enough to avoid getting into stupid fights. The fact that it wasn't YOUR fight at all makes it that much more infuriating to be dragged into it. There is no way at this point to tell how easy or hard it will be to get yourself clear of it and get your property back.

My NON-LEGAL advice to you is as follows: Get the lawyer. Let the lawyer do the talking. DO NOT bring up Constitutional violations you think may have happened for two reasons: (1) your lawyer will know more about it than you do and will know what are the best approaches to this problem; and (2) in the eyes of Officialdom, non-legal-experts who own guns and rant about how their rights were violated by cops executing a warrant always look like cranks and troublemakers. What you want is to get out of the picture and off the legal system's radar as fast as possible. This was not your fight, so do not make yourself a topic of interest in it. Keep your mouth shut, hide behind your lawyer, and do what he or she tells you. That's what lawyers are for.

Frankly, this kind of thing is exactly the reason why I will never have a roommate I'm not in love with, and why I avoid almost all contact with my immediate neighbors.

To our British cousins who have issues with gun ownership:

I am an American who is a big fan of gun control. I agree that keeping both guns and ammunition in one's house is way too risky and should not be done.

However, that said, there is no point in arguing over whether or not people have a right to bear arms. If civil rights are legal constructs, then people have whatever rights they can defend under the law. The right to bear arms IS specifically stated in the US Constitution, so whether we think that's a good thing or not is irrelevant. In the US, people do have a right to bear arms. In the US, there is much debate over exactly how that right should be used. I very seldom comment in gun ownership/second amendment debates because I fall into a rather uncomfortable middle ground -- I support much more extensive regulation of guns than most US states have nowadays, but only up to a certain degree. I don't like guns, don't want to be around guns, often feel a kind of knee-jerk personal distrust of people who are very enthusiastic about guns, but I also see good reasons for private citizens to be able to own guns and have no wish to live in a country where the power of force is held only by the government. Even though that sounds like a kind of paranoid attitude, what I really wish is that gun owners would be less paranoid and not think that gun regulation is a plot against freedom. The US is a nation created out of revolution, so a little paranoia against authority is natural and a good thing in our culture (at the moment, I wish we had a bit more of it), but we should avoid going overboard with it, in either direction.

[aside]
Don't you find that 55 gr is a little light for longer ranges? I load 80 gr Sierra Matchkings for my 600 and 1000 yard ammo. I really like the 69 gr Matchkings for 200 and 300 yards.

I like their 180 gr for my Garand.

Do you buy or load?

55 grain works for me, for 100 yard ranges. If I get into the local sportsman's club, I'll probably have to re-think my choice, as they have a 400 yard rifle range. And I buy. I don't have the room right now to reload.

Oh joy, Gov. Co. strikes again. Your room mate and a neighbor gets into a fight and not only are the police called in, but they seize your guns for a "preventive" measure. Hell genius, if his room mate wants a gun bad enough he can always go BUY ONE!

Or he perhaps can think about not speding money and blaming his roomate by using his gun, just because he's stupid enough for that. I know he can't, because what the OP explained, but the police and the courts don't know that, yet. I'm pretty sure after everything is explained they will return his gun back, but I still support the preventive measure.

Oh joy, Gov. Co. strikes again. Your room mate and a neighbor gets into a fight and not only are the police called in, but they seize your guns for a "preventive" measure. Hell genius, if his room mate wants a gun bad enough he can always go BUY ONE!

I hate Preventive Measures, because all they do (for the most part) is delay the inevitable.

I don't know if the altercation involved physicality (my roommate says no), but I do know that allegedly my roommate made a threat.

Ok and...
It's painfully obvious as to why, but if you insist, here's an analogy:
Say you want to stab someone and tell them you will. Should the police not confiscate the knife you own at home on the grounds that you could always buy a new one?

Or he perhaps can think about not speding money and blaming his roomate by using his gun, just because he's stupid enough for that. I know he can't, because what the OP explained, but the police and the courts don't know that, yet. I'm pretty sure after everything is explained they will return his gun back, but I still support the preventive measure.

Why? What good does it do? If someone want something bad enough they're going to find a way to do what they want one way or another.

Do you also support preventive imprisonment? I mean his neighbor hasn't committed an offense that warrants a jail sentence, but maybe he should be put in jail anyways, you know to prevent some future crimes he hasn't committed yet.

It's painfully obvious as to why, but if you insist, here's an analogy:
Say you want to stab someone and tell them you will. Should the police not confiscate the knife you own at home on the grounds that you could always buy a new one?

Yea, but if I want to stab my neighbor bad enough, I'd just go out and buy another knife and stab him anyways. So, what did confiscating my original knife do again?

Why? What good does it do? If someone want something bad enough they're going to find a way to do what they want one way or another.

Do you also support preventive imprisonment? I mean his neighbor hasn't committed an offense that warrants a jail sentence, but maybe he should be put in jail anyways, you know to prevent some future crimes he hasn't committed yet.

A civil sueing may be appropiate if he made any radical threat. The legal system should have more appropiate measures than just imprisonment. You pulled out a nice straw man with the preventive imprisonment issue. Did I called for such an extreme measure?

And people can be discouraged. The point is, that you can have proof of all those cases where the guy wasn't discouraged, easily, but hardly can you find proof about those who were discouraged, because nothing happened. However, after a quick number research, you can imagine that people issue way more threats that the ones that they are willing to fulfill at all costs. Usually, just a little bit of discouragement is all that it takes to make someone relax, think twice, and chill out.

Yea, but if I want to stab my neighbor bad enough, I'd just go out and buy another knife and stab him anyways. So, what did confiscating my original knife do again?

Check my post. Stubborn people go that way, but most just need to think twice before acting. Having your knife away while you think if you truly want to stab that neighbour is useful.

Yea, but if I want to stab my neighbor bad enough, I'd just go out and buy another knife and stab him anyways. So, what did confiscating my original knife do again?In the end, bought time and made you pay for the extra knife. Then again, if you were under surveillance while buying the knife, and had been ordered not to, they can jail you for that and remove the threat you display. This would not be an option if you had been allowed to keep your knife. Sometimes taking the weapon away acts as a deterrent.
From the angle you're arguing, the only real solution for GM's situation would have been for the police to shoot his roommate dead, along with GM just to be sure.

Not that it helps you any now, but no one knows I have guns.

As soon as certain people do, they are looking for trouble with them.

So-my neighbors dont know. My kids dont know and my wife doesnt know.

I'm not known here as a hunter or a shooter. I've never had them on display over the fireplace. I'm not a regular at the local gun store.

I dont have my NRA sticker on my cars.

Mine were all legaly purchased and are all not only locked up and with trigger guards, but they are totally concealed as well.

If someone broke in and looted my house they would never find them.
And if the house burnt down, ammo wouldnt cook off.

A civil sueing may be appropiate if he made any radical threat. The legal system should have more appropiate measures than just imprisonment. You pulled out a nice straw man with the preventive imprisonment issue. Did I called for such an extreme measure?

And people can be discouraged. The point is, that you can have proof of all those cases where the guy wasn't discouraged, easily, but hardly can you find proof about those who were discouraged, because nothing happened. However, after a quick number research, you can imagine that people issue way more threats that the ones that they are willing to fulfill at all costs. Usually, just a little bit of discouragement is all that it takes to make someone relax, think twice, and chill out.

Yea, I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to "thought" crimes where Police can go and seize anything that may (may is a HUGE key word) be use in a crime. Most people who do "threats" are cowards anyways and won't follow through on them.

In the end, bought time and made you pay for the extra knife. Then again, if you were under surveillance while buying the knife, and had been ordered not to, they can jail you for that and remove the threat you display. This would not be an option if you had been allowed to keep your knife. Sometimes taking the weapon away acts as a deterrent.
From the angle you're arguing, the only real solution for GM's situation would have been for the police to shoot his roommate dead, along with GM just to be sure.

No, my solution was to address the problem of his Room mate threatening the neighbor as is. He threats his neighbor fine, that can be settled in court, the room mate can be arraigned on charges and have a trial. If it warrants the neighbor being arrested and set on bail, do it. However, don't involve people and their property when they had nothing to do with it.

Yea, I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to "thought" crimes where Police can go and seize anything that may (may is a HUGE key word) be use in a crime. Most people who do "threats" are cowards anyways and won't follow through on them.Ah, but his roommate has been accused of committing a real crime, so bringing "thought crime" into the discussion is pointless. Also, if most people who make threats are cowards and don't follow through on them, why would anyone argue along the lines that someone could want to follow through on a threat so badly that taking a weapon out of their reach is a waste of time?

No, my solution was to address the problem of his Room mate threatening the neighbor as is. He threats his neighbor fine, that can be settled in court, the room mate can be arraigned on charges and have a trial. If it warrants the neighbor being arrested and set on bail, do it. However, don't involve people and their property when they had nothing to do with it.That's what happens when you share property. It comes with a reduction of privacy and extra responsibilities.

Yea, I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to "thought" crimes where Police can go and seize anything that may (may is a HUGE key word) be use in a crime. Most people who do "threats" are cowards anyways and won't follow through on them.

Your point here seems to be contradicting the one you exposed before, when you said that when people are determined to do something, they do it anyway no matter what preventive measures you take. Now you are saying that most are cowards and aren't really going to follow through. Well, a little scare with the police taking away a weapon may induce cowardice in more than a few. Then again, the preventive measure is a good thing.

Did you change your mind?

Here, the point is a little bit more complicated. The gun is not owned by the one making the threat. However, if he just said "I'm going to grab my roomate's rifle and put a charge of lead into you and your family", the point of taking the gun away may be valid. Of course, then again, the police doesn't know that the gun is locked, and that GM is the only holder of the key. I'm pretty sure they will turn the gun back after they discover that.

The one to blame here, in any case, is the roommate.

That's what happens when you share property. It comes with a reduction of privacy and extra responsibilities.

Yea, but from the OP it seems that they do not share the gun.

Not that it helps you any now, but no one knows I have guns.

As soon as certain people do, they are looking for trouble with them.

So-my neighbors dont know. My kids dont know and my wife doesnt know.

I'm not known here as a hunter or a shooter. I've never had them on display over the fireplace. I'm not a regular at the local gun store.

I dont have my NRA sticker on my cars.

Mine were all legaly purchased and are all not only locked up and with trigger guards, but they are totally concealed as well.

If someone broke in and looted my house they would never find them.
And if the house burnt down, ammo wouldnt cook off.

I try to be stealthy when bringing my rifle to/from my apartment to/from my vehicle (on days I go to the range), but there's a nice older couple (almost grandparent age) that likes to talk to me when they see me. They happened to catch me outside when I was coming back from the range, and while talking to them, several of my neighbors walked by (including my downstairs neighbor).

Yea, but from the OP it seems that they do not share the gun.True, but they share a room, where said gun is stored. And if GM can convince the judge of the measures set in place to keep it out of his neighbor's hands, there shouldn't be anything to say against him having it back. However, from what the court knew, a life could have been at stake and the gun could have been within reach of the roomie.

Not that it helps you any now, but no one knows I have guns.

As soon as certain people do, they are looking for trouble with them.

So-my neighbors dont know. My kids dont know and my wife doesnt know.

I'm not known here as a hunter or a shooter. I've never had them on display over the fireplace. I'm not a regular at the local gun store.

I dont have my NRA sticker on my cars.

Mine were all legaly purchased and are all not only locked up and with trigger guards, but they are totally concealed as well.

If someone broke in and looted my house they would never find them.
And if the house burnt down, ammo wouldnt cook off.
Your own family don't know you own guns? That's taking it a bit far, isn't it? Do you ever use those guns -- for hunting or target shooting? If so, and they don't know about the guns, then obviously, they don't know what hubby/daddy is doing while he's away from home. How many lies to do you tell to account for your time away from them? That's a rhetorical question; I don't want you to answer something so personal. I only mentioned it as something to think about. Keeping such a secret from your wife begs the question of what else you don't tell her.

This is kind of what I mean about going too far in either direction. I agree that there is no reason for neighbors who are not close personal friends to know anything about your private life. They don't need to know what you own or who you hang out with, etc. But your own family? Why would you not trust them? Why would your wife not be the first-choice person to take charge of your guns if something should happen to you? If you don't trust her to know your business, why marry her?

This is another reason I have personal problems with gun ownership, even though I support the right to have them. For so many people, it seems they are nothing but a complication and a problem. People have to go to such lengths and expense to maintain safety around them. Look at what you are doing -- injecting an ongoing lie into your family life. It's the most extreme measure I've ever heard of. Even many career criminals don't go that far.

EDIT: And as for your confidence that you have stowed them in total safety and nothing bad will ever come of them, I have just one thought: The Titanic was thought to be unsinkable.

Nice balanced post Muravyets.
I have been a lawyer for more years than I care to admit. In my younger years I had an extensive criminal practice and handled a number of murder and manslaughter cases. I found that most of my clients could not be described as evil, but allowed themselves themselves to be involved in crime through weakness. In one case I had, a father and son had an argument. The son had no criminal record. There was a legally held shotgun in the home. The son consumed alcohol, took the gun and killed his father who was sleeping in bed. I have absolutely no doubt that if the gun had not been available, my client would have led a normal life, rather than spending ten years in prison, and he would not now be living with the guilt of patricide.
In this present case I think it is likely the gun will be returned, if the facts we have been given are correct. The inconvenience of it being taken away temporarily is a small price to pay for the privilege of owning one.

The inconvenience of it being taken away temporarily is a small price to pay for the privilege of owning one.

Thank you for expressing my argument is such a professional way.

Ok, here's some back story. As some of you may know, I have a roommate, an apartment(which is somewhat messy on the best days) and I own a firearm (which some of my neighbors know about). Anyway, about 1 month ago, my roommate and one of my neighbor's oldest son had an altercation. I wasn't involved or there to witness it, but my roommate told me it was the neighbor's fault. We have very little interaction with these neighbors under normal circumstances, and after this happened, we took great pains to further avoid them. Well, at approximately 10:30 last night, while I was attempting to get some sleep, the Connecticut State Police knocked down the door to my apartment. They had a warrant to seize any firearms in the apartment, and for approximately 2 hours proceeded to tear my place apart in the process. For what reason? Because my roommate (who doesn't have access my rifle) apparently poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or to others (after an unspecified independent investigation). The law that allows them to do this is is CGS 29-38c (see here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/olr/htm/2001-r-0896.htm). Supposedly a hearing is required to be held within 14 days, but knowing my luck, it could possibly be delayed for months. If I lose at the hearing, they could hold my rifle for a year, all while no crime has been committed.

What I want to know is, why the hell did they take MY rifle? My roommate does not have the combination to my gun safe, the combination to the lock on the gun case, or the key to the trigger lock. Is this a breach of my 2nd and 4th amendment civil rights, as I'm not even a party to this incident? I have to wait until the morning to contact a lawyer (as I don't have one on retainer), but I have been on the phone with my uncle, who is a police officer.

Another question (to avoid people yelling, "Get a blog"), do you agree with a law that allows the seizure of property without a crime being committed? NSG legal eagles, feel free to comment.

ETA: Here's a CNN article on the subject as well: http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/02/gun.seizures/

First off: I especially like you nation name in conjunction with this thread.

Second off: Yes, I do feel they violated your rights.

I'm all for police having a lot of authority, it's needed to protect and serve. However, I feel that they should have done a little more personal investigation before seizing property. If they delay your trial for months, I feel you should get the gun in the meantime. I feel the whole situation is entirely bogus, they can't seize property if a trial is required in 14 days, and keep it if it takes longer, that is unjust.

Additionally, all of their information must've come from the neighbor, who, as everyone knows, must be the only one reliable enough to tell all of the truth, why didn't they ask your roommate? Or you even, because it deals with your property? The whole situation is extremely stupid.

Hope you win! (If you pay my plane ticket, I will represent you for no fee... though I'm not a lawyer, so I would personally advise against it! :p)

Your own family don't know you own guns? That's taking it a bit far, isn't it? Do you ever use those guns -- for hunting or target shooting? If so, and they don't know about the guns, then obviously, they don't know what hubby/daddy is doing while he's away from home. How many lies to do you tell to account for your time away from them? That's a rhetorical question; I don't want you to answer something so personal. I only mentioned it as something to think about. Keeping such a secret from your wife begs the question of what else you don't tell her.

This is kind of what I mean about going too far in either direction. I agree that there is no reason for neighbors who are not close personal friends to know anything about your private life. They don't need to know what you own or who you hang out with, etc. But your own family? Why would you not trust them? Why would your wife not be the first-choice person to take charge of your guns if something should happen to you? If you don't trust her to know your business, why marry her?

This is another reason I have personal problems with gun ownership, even though I support the right to have them. For so many people, it seems they are nothing but a complication and a problem. People have to go to such lengths and expense to maintain safety around them. Look at what you are doing -- injecting an ongoing lie into your family life. It's the most extreme measure I've ever heard of. Even many career criminals don't go that far.

EDIT: And as for your confidence that you have stowed them in total safety and nothing bad will ever come of them, I have just one thought: The Titanic was thought to be unsinkable.


My father owns a large piece of land we shoot on. My wife and kids assume the guns are stored with his.There are no lies other than that of ommission.
My oldest,just a teen, shoots with me once or twice a year. He hasnt raised the slightest interest in the guns when we arent shooting.
I take gun possession seriously. I dont want one of my guns to ever accidentally shoot someone or be stolen and used in a crime. I dont want to have a box of shells go off in a fire and hurt a fireman or a neighbor.
I think its well thought out and responsible.
I dont see it as going too far. We bought this house new, as it was being constructed and modifications were very inexpensive at the time.
And well worth the piece of mind.

Its not a lie. Its insuring that my kids wont have a lapse in judgment and decide to show their friends one day when I'm not home. Its peace of mind that someone that wuld know we had guns doesnt gossip to someone else and that someone else decides stolen guns could be icing on the cake after stealing jewelry and flat screen tvs,ect...

The best way to keep something secret is not to allow people to know the secret even exists.

As for the rest of the conclsuions you draw- thats your opinion. I'm happily married for nearly twenty years now.

As far as your Titanic reference ? They appeared to be arrogant about it.

I'm not. If I'm erring on the side of being over cautious,thats ok.

Nice balanced post Muravyets.
I have been a lawyer for more years than I care to admit. In my younger years I had an extensive criminal practice and handled a number of murder and manslaughter cases. I found that most of my clients could not be described as evil, but allowed themselves themselves to be involved in crime through weakness. In one case I had, a father and son had an argument. The son had no criminal record. There was a legally held shotgun in the home. The son consumed alcohol, took the gun and killed his father who was sleeping in bed. I have absolutely no doubt that if the gun had not been available, my client would have led a normal life, rather than spending ten years in prison, and he would not now be living with the guilt of patricide.
In this present case I think it is likely the gun will be returned, if the facts we have been given are correct. The inconvenience of it being taken away temporarily is a small price to pay for the privilege of owning one.

Thats a horror that never entered my mind. I cant ever envision that happening, but I bet the victim in your case couldnt either.

I'm fairly secure in the fact I have taken all reasonable precautions. If I couldnt keep my guns safe and innacessable, I wouldnt own them.
In my opinion, it would be asking for trouble.

One of the key things the anti-gun crowd has kicked around is accessibility. If your firearm was secured where your roomie could not access it without your knowledge/permission, you have covered this clause and therefore the rifle should have been a moot issue. This would render the seizure of your weapon as illegal. However, the police work in the worst case scenario. Their line of thinking is because one resident of your home (your roomie) had an altercation with the neighbors, you will likely side with him if the situation escilates and your rifle presents a danger to the other party. Don`t get me wrong, I think you got fucked over in this. I am a gunowner myself and the myraid of laws and technicalities we have to navigate to exersize our RIGHT (not privledge) is mindboggling. All it takes is one vindictive person to say something like "they have a gun and they are dangerous" and suddenly we are guity until proven innocent and the jugernaut of bureaucaracy begins rolling the wheels of INJUSTICE upon us.

I am not familiar with the law(s) in your state. Where I am (Illinois) something similar could happen as our state government has been hijacked by our largest city (Chicago) and they are hard at work trying to push their failed adjenda of gun control on us and violating the rights of lawful gunowners while trying to prove the justness of their cause.

This is a sad testement to how our counrty is going. I can remember as a child, my dad had guns all over the house. Some loaded, some not. No trigger locks or safe, this was the early 70`s. I was educated in how to use them and where they were and NEVER touched one without his knowledge. Ah, those were simpler times.

Hmm... I'm not sure you have a point to stand on there for IIRC, a judge issuing the warrant has to be satisfied that propabale cause is met. Normally that does not involve asking the target of the warrant to explain things as said targets have a regretable tendency to run home and hide whatever it is that the police were looking for.

Your chance to defend yourselves would be at the hearing itself when the cause would then be debated as fact or not. (Not a laywer and am expecting a smacking from Neo art or Cat Tribes when they show up).

Oh yeah, Hot Naked Young Chicks here (That's what's needed to get Neo Art into a thread as per Superman II).

Stop DOING that. It's seriously distracting when I'm trying to work.

By and large what you said is correct. Police and judges have some significant lattitude when it comes to when someone has been judged a risk to himself or others (by whatever applicable standard). Your chance to demonstrate the situation will come at the hearing.

I try to be stealthy when bringing my rifle to/from my apartment to/from my vehicle (on days I go to the range), but there's a nice older couple (almost grandparent age) that likes to talk to me when they see me. They happened to catch me outside when I was coming back from the range, and while talking to them, several of my neighbors walked by (including my downstairs neighbor).

damn nosy old people.

Where I am, the neigbors would need a lense to see me carrying them from house to car.

I dont have guns for home defense. I've safely handled them since I was in my teens and want to keep that trend.
I learned gun safety from a real hardcore old timer. And by luck,came to acquire some valuable guns that I never would have bought on the market for retail. Some are very valuable.

I shoot on occasion. I'm not out every weekend shooting/hunting.

I play more golf these days.

And my golf clubs? I just leave them,unlocked, in a closet,where any nut can get his hands on them.

Nice balanced post Muravyets.
I have been a lawyer for more years than I care to admit. In my younger years I had an extensive criminal practice and handled a number of murder and manslaughter cases. I found that most of my clients could not be described as evil, but allowed themselves themselves to be involved in crime through weakness. In one case I had, a father and son had an argument. The son had no criminal record. There was a legally held shotgun in the home. The son consumed alcohol, took the gun and killed his father who was sleeping in bed. I have absolutely no doubt that if the gun had not been available, my client would have led a normal life, rather than spending ten years in prison, and he would not now be living with the guilt of patricide.
In this present case I think it is likely the gun will be returned, if the facts we have been given are correct. The inconvenience of it being taken away temporarily is a small price to pay for the privilege of owning one.
Thanks, and your point here is well taken. In the US as well, a significant number of gun deaths/injuries, accidental or deliberate, happen with legally owned guns in private houses, often by the persons who own the guns or their families. There is no denying the inherent risk of keeping both guns and ammunition in one's home.

However, I think the debate hinges on how to respond to that inherent risk. You, as a UK citizen, seem to wish to err on the side of safety and eliminate the risk by eliminating the gun. This makes pragmatic sense, but it also requires us to eliminate the socio-political concept behind the Second Amendment altogether. There is a reason why that right was added to the Constitution, and frankly, it has a bit to do with what the North American colonials felt was oppressive government authority coming from England. So, when it comes to debating gun ownership, I think we need to acknowledge a cultural divide here.

It seems to me, from the American perspective, that people in the UK are a bit more willing to rely on their government and thus accept the government holding more power of force than the citizens do. The American attitude is the opposite. Americans, all of whom have some kind of heritage of problems with old social orders and government authority (consider the reasons why most people left their "old country," and let's not even quibble about the native peoples' experience), are a tad more inclined to distrust government and to want to maintain personal independence/self-sufficiency so they do not have to rely on government for most things. Gun ownership was and is seen as part of that.

As I believe you said earlier, to you, US attitudes towards guns make no sense because they create what you see as an unacceptable level of risk.

By that same token, to many Americans, the UK attitude makes little sense as well. To us, it seems that the British tolerate a level of government intrusion into and control over private life that seems actively oppressive to us.

So to you, the loss of safety is too high a price to pay for the freedom of owning a gun. To us, the loss of freedom (of which gun ownership is only a part) is too high a price to pay for a relative sense of personal safety. Part of assessing "acceptal risk" is prioritizing what people want most from their society, and that will differ from group to group.

(As a side note, I should say that all this balancing of safety and freedom is, in my opinion, a balance of illusions, of perceived levels of safety and freedom. In my opinion, freedom is a lot harder to take away than some people fear, and safety is a pernicious myth that I am sick of hearing about.)

I guess, to me, the bottom line is that one must decide what one wants from one's society. People who want certain kinds of things may choose to live in the UK, under UK law, in the UK way. People who want something else may choose to live in the US, under US law, in the US way. Same for all other nations and cultures. Within the US, if we don't like the way one state addresses certain issues, we are free to move to another state that does things differently. For instance, I detest Massachusetts' new health care law. Because of it, I am considering moving to another state.

The State of Connecticut chose to address matters such as the OP describes by confiscating property. Perhaps they would have been more correct to address it by arresting the person who made the threat, not taking away the property of innocent bystanders who just happen to be around him. But maybe the state legislature decided that imposing upon property was less ungood than punishing people for words spoken in the heat of a moment. Whatever. It's what they decided to do, and if the OP does not like the way Connecticut handles this, he has the option to either lobby for a change in the lawm, or move to another state that takes a different approach, if it really bothers him that much.

Yea, but from the OP it seems that they do not share the gun.

We do not. It's mine, and mine alone.

True, but they share a room, where said gun is stored. And if GM can convince the judge of the measures set in place to keep it out of his neighbor's hands, there shouldn't be anything to say against him having it back. However, from what the court knew, a life could have been at stake and the gun could have been within reach of the roomie.

Actually, we share a kitchen, a living room, and a bathroom. We have our own bedrooms though, and my gun safe is in mine.

...
The State of Connecticut chose to address matters such as the OP describes by confiscating property. Perhaps they would have been more correct to address it by arresting the person who made the threat, not taking away the property of innocent bystanders who just happen to be around him. But maybe the state legislature decided that imposing upon property was less ungood than punishing people for words spoken in the heat of a moment. Whatever. It's what they decided to do, and if the OP does not like the way Connecticut handles this, he has the option to either lobby for a change in the lawm, or move to another state that takes a different approach, if it really bothers him that much.

And he's welcome here, as soon as he gets tired of that Yankee nonsense.

My father owns a large piece of land we shoot on. My wife and kids assume the guns are stored with his.There are no lies other than that of ommission.
A lie of ommission is a lie. Hence the use of the word "lie" in the phrase "lie of ommission."

If you only use the guns on your father's property, why not really store them there? It is what I would do -- store the guns securely in the place where they are to be used, not just for safety but for convenience as well.

My oldest,just a teen, shoots with me once or twice a year. He hasnt raised the slightest interest in the guns when we arent shooting.
I take gun possession seriously. I dont want one of my guns to ever accidentally shoot someone or be stolen and used in a crime. I dont want to have a box of shells go off in a fire and hurt a fireman or a neighbor.
I think its well thought out and responsible.
I disagree. I personally think that by keeping your wife in the dark about the actual location of the guns you have lessened your ability to keep them out of the hands of your children or burglars. I can understand not telling your younger children about them (though I disagree), but I fail to see why your wife, who I assume in an adult, should not be informed about what is in the house her children live in. A second adult with knowledge about the guns is a second pair of eyes to watch out for the kids in that regard.

I dont see it as going too far. We bought this house new, as it was being constructed and modifications were very inexpensive at the time.
And well worth the piece of mind.
Storing the guns at your father's place would guarantee peace of mind about not having gun accidents in your new home.

Its not a lie. Its insuring that my kids wont have a lapse in judgment and decide to show their friends one day when I'm not home. Its peace of mind that someone that wuld know we had guns doesnt gossip to someone else and that someone else decides stolen guns could be icing on the cake after stealing jewelry and flat screen tvs,ect...
Have you ever been burglarized? Some burglars just grab what looks good immediately and run, but many others ransack houses from top to bottom, depending on how much time they think they have, taking anything and everything they can find. They judge a target as likely/unlikely to have good stuff by a cursory surface "casing" of it, and don't find out what the pickings actually are until they get in. They will demolish anything they can that stands in their way, including doors, wall panels and floor boards, if they have even the slightest idea that there might be something behind them. It typically takes a good burglar about 15 minutes to rip through an average house. Keeping your guns a secret is not going to save them from a burglar unless your secret hiding place is a solid steel gun safe, properly locked AND properly bolted to the floor/walls of the building -- with of course a separate, similarly bolted safe for the ammo. The only thing that will keep them out of the hands of a burglar is making it physically impossible to pick them up, and if you do that, then secrecy is not really needed.

The best way to keep something secret is not to allow people to know the secret even exists.
Heh, that sounds kind of like a fairy tale to me.

And you do realize you just blabbed your secret out right here, don't you? Do you keep your NS hobby a big-ass secret from the world too? Now we're right back to how many things your wife doesn't know about you. Yes, yes, I'm sure you think no one who knows you, knows your NS screen name, etc, etc, but if the CIA can't even keep its secrets, what makes you think you can?

Secrets are more trouble than they are worth, and they never, never last long.

As for the rest of the conclsuions you draw- thats your opinion. I'm happily married for nearly twenty years now.
Are you sure? :p

As far as your Titanic reference ? They appeared to be arrogant about it.
Their arrogance had nothing to do with it. They were just wrong. The ship had been meticulously designed to resist sinking. The engineers honestly believed they had taken every possible variant into consideration. They were wrong. It turned out there were plenty of variants they hadn't even imagined and so hadn't considered. What makes you think you are more omniscient than they?

I'm not. If I'm erring on the side of being over cautious,thats ok.
So you believe, and of course, you are within your rights to live your life as you see fit. I think you are making a mistake that is increasing, rather than decreasing, the risk to your family, but there is absolutely no reason for you to give a shit what I think about what you do. I have stated my opinion, and I thank you for responding civilly to it, but it's neither my place nor my intention to judge your choices, so having said my bit, I'll shut up about it now.

A lie of ommission is a lie. Hence the use of the word "lie" in the phrase "lie of ommission."

If you only use the guns on your father's property, why not really store them there? It is what I would do -- store the guns securely in the place where they are to be used, not just for safety but for convenience as well.


I disagree. I personally think that by keeping your wife in the dark about the actual location of the guns you have lessened your ability to keep them out of the hands of your children or burglars. I can understand not telling your younger children about them (though I disagree), but I fail to see why your wife, who I assume in an adult, should not be informed about what is in the house her children live in. A second adult with knowledge about the guns is a second pair of eyes to watch out for the kids in that regard.


Storing the guns at your father's place would guarantee peace of mind about not having gun accidents in your new home.


Have you ever been burglarized? Some burglars just grab what looks good immediately and run, but many others ransack houses from top to bottom, depending on how much time they think they have, taking anything and everything they can find. They judge a target as likely/unlikely to have good stuff by a cursory surface "casing" of it, and don't find out what the pickings actually are until they get in. They will demolish anything they can that stands in their way, including doors, wall panels and floor boards, if they have even the slightest idea that there might be something behind them. It typically takes a good burglar about 15 minutes to rip through an average house. Keeping your guns a secret is not going to save them from a burglar unless your secret hiding place is a solid steel gun safe, properly locked AND properly bolted to the floor/walls of the building -- with of course a separate, similarly bolted safe for the ammo. The only thing that will keep them out of the hands of a burglar is making it physically impossible to pick them up, and if you do that, then secrecy is not really needed.


Heh, that sounds kind of like a fairy tale to me.

And you do realize you just blabbed your secret out right here, don't you? Do you keep your NS hobby a big-ass secret from the world too? Now we're right back to how many things your wife doesn't know about you. Yes, yes, I'm sure you think no one who knows you, knows your NS screen name, etc, etc, but if the CIA can't even keep its secrets, what makes you think you can?

Secrets are more trouble than they are worth, and they never, never last long.


Are you sure? :p


Their arrogance had nothing to do with it. They were just wrong. The ship had been meticulously designed to resist sinking. The engineers honestly believed they had taken every possible variant into consideration. They were wrong. It turned out there were plenty of variants they hadn't even imagined and so hadn't considered. What makes you think you are more omniscient than they?


So you believe, and of course, you are within your rights to live your life as you see fit. I think you are making a mistake that is increasing, rather than decreasing, the risk to your family, but there is absolutely no reason for you to give a shit what I think about what you do. I have stated my opinion, and I thank you for responding civilly to it, but it's neither my place nor my intention to judge your choices, so having said my bit, I'll shut up about it now.

I see where what works well for me may not work well for you.

They are my property and my responsibilty-thats why they are here.

I'm not sure why this is such an issue with you-maybe its more with me,than the subject? I dont know-I dont recall butting heads with you before.

If I offered more detail, you might be able to understand a little better.
But-I'm not. Certainly not to be deliberately rude.

However- Solid steel safe-check.

exceptionally well concealed and secured in place- check

blabbed? If someone could identify me and then locate me,they are much better than I. I have nothing worth that type of effort.
And then of course, they'd have me to deal with.

never been burgled, but plenty of experience in that subject.

And just for the record- I wasnt bragging about the lengths I've gone to, I was more trying to give advice for GM and others with guns.

In my opinion, just locking them up isnt good enough. many safes can be removed and carried off to be opened at liesure in private.
If no one knows they are there to start with,you're probably going to be better off.

And he's welcome here, as soon as he gets tired of that Yankee nonsense.

That'd be cool, except I hate the Braves.

:p

Actually, we share a kitchen, a living room, and a bathroom. We have our own bedrooms though, and my gun safe is in mine.Ah. That does change things. That's a flatmate in my book, not a roommate, so I misunderstood the situation. As Neo Art said, the law may intend to err on the side of caution, particularly since there's two additional witnesses. You should be able to convince the judge that the gun is stored out of your flatmate's reach in that case.

Ok, update time. I talked to a lawyer (I called 5, and this was the first one that offered a free consultation for this type of case). He told me that due to my roommate's proximity to my firearm, and the fact that there's not really a way to prove that he doesn't have access to it, the hearing could go either way. One thing he suggested was to talk to a relative, to see if I could store it there instead of at my apartment. The only problem with that is, my sister and brother in law live over 45 minutes away, and it would be pretty inconvenient (to them and to me) for my rifle to be stored there, when I want to go shooting at a range (although I'm sure my brother in law wouldn't mind keeping my rifle well fed with a steady diet of .223/5.56mm).

I'm going to try to get ahold of another lawyer, to get a second opinion on the matter.

Once you said "warrant" it was clear your rights weren't violated. Warrants, and the US constitution, refer to the thing being searched for, and not the owner. Think about it- if they did, "it's not my stuff, officer" would be a valid way to avoid charges following a drug search! (not to say they don't try this, every time)

Police officers are not there to hear stories and make judgements, that is what a judge is for. If you've done nothing illegal, and they do not hold the items seized as evidence for someone else's trial, you can have your things returned. See the local court clerk for procedures, and for gods sake be respectful about it.

If they refuse, THEN your rights are being violated.

As far as the warrant is concerned, its a grey area. Warrants are required to specifically list the items to be seized and searched. If it merely said 'all guns' then you might have a case against them.

Your second amendment rights were definitely violated.

Your 2nd amendment rights being violated are open for debate.


Your 4th amendment right however was not violated. They had a warrent and went through proper channels.

Your 2nd amendment rights being violated are open for debate.


Your 4th amendment right however was not violated. They had a warrent and went through proper channels.

See, here's my thinking, in regards to the fourth amendment. The amendment states, "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". The thing is, it was MY property seized, on a warrant issued relating to my roommate. They had no probable cause to issue a warrant for MY property, IMO. They did have probable cause to issue a warrant for property owned by my ROOMMATE, however. That's why the title and OP mention the 4th amendment.

And I'd prefer to keep the hardcore arguments about the second amendment in the background, if possible (AKA I'd rather this not turn into the same statistics war we usually see).

See, here's my thinking, in regards to the fourth amendment. The amendment states, "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". The thing is, it was MY property seized, on a warrant issued relating to my roommate. They had no probable cause to issue a warrant for MY property, IMO. They did have probable cause to issue a warrant for property owned by my ROOMMATE, however.

Unfortunately, it'll cost you a lot of money to prove that which is bolded. Now, if you could get the ACLU or someone else interested in defending you, it would cost less to find out that the government really is an imperial entity and not under our control any longer.

Unfortunately, it'll cost you a lot of money to prove that which is bolded. Now, if you could get the ACLU or someone else interested in defending you, it would cost less to find out that the government really is an imperial entity and not under our control any longer.

Well, hopefully it won't be necessary to bring this issue past the hearing I'm supposed to have in 14 days or less. If they stall too long though, or I lose the hearing, then a call to the ACLU might be in order.

I think the law in question might be unconstitutional so if the law is unconstitutional then the search was illegal. However under the law as written the search was legal. I say fight to get your firearms and try to get NRA on your side because the ACLU is "neutral" on Second Amendment.

I think the law in question might be unconstitutional so if the law is unconstitutional then the search was illegal. However under the law as written the search was legal. I say fight to get your firearms and try to get NRA on your side because the ACLU is "neutral" on Second Amendment.

Even if they're neutral on the second amendment, if the law is unconstitutional (making the search and seizure illegal), then they'd probably take the case to protect my fourth amendment rights.

Also, if the hearing goes bad, I could get the NRA and the The Coalition Of CT Sportsmen involved.

Ok, here's some back story. As some of you may know, I have a roommate, an apartment(which is somewhat messy on the best days) and I own a firearm (which some of my neighbors know about). Anyway, about 1 month ago, my roommate and one of my neighbor's oldest son had an altercation. I wasn't involved or there to witness it, but my roommate told me it was the neighbor's fault. We have very little interaction with these neighbors under normal circumstances, and after this happened, we took great pains to further avoid them. Well, at approximately 10:30 last night, while I was attempting to get some sleep, the Connecticut State Police knocked down the door to my apartment. They had a warrant to seize any firearms in the apartment, and for approximately 2 hours proceeded to tear my place apart in the process. For what reason? Because my roommate (who doesn't have access my rifle) apparently poses a risk of imminent personal injury to himself or to others (after an unspecified independent investigation). The law that allows them to do this is is CGS 29-38c (see here: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/olr/htm/2001-r-0896.htm). Supposedly a hearing is required to be held within 14 days, but knowing my luck, it could possibly be delayed for months. If I lose at the hearing, they could hold my rifle for a year, all while no crime has been committed.

What I want to know is, why the hell did they take MY rifle? My roommate does not have the combination to my gun safe, the combination to the lock on the gun case, or the key to the trigger lock. Is this a breach of my 2nd and 4th amendment civil rights, as I'm not even a party to this incident? I have to wait until the morning to contact a lawyer (as I don't have one on retainer), but I have been on the phone with my uncle, who is a police officer.

Another question (to avoid people yelling, "Get a blog"), do you agree with a law that allows the seizure of property without a crime being committed? NSG legal eagles, feel free to comment.

ETA: Here's a CNN article on the subject as well: http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/02/gun.seizures/

According to the warrant, my roommate threatened to kill my neighbor's son (which doesn't sound like something he'd say). The warrant says the threat was witnessed by 2 other people (under 18, so their names aren't listed) not related to the son.

Ok, update time. I talked to a lawyer (I called 5, and this was the first one that offered a free consultation for this type of case). He told me that due to my roommate's proximity to my firearm, and the fact that there's not really a way to prove that he doesn't have access to it, the hearing could go either way. One thing he suggested was to talk to a relative, to see if I could store it there instead of at my apartment. The only problem with that is, my sister and brother in law live over 45 minutes away, and it would be pretty inconvenient (to them and to me) for my rifle to be stored there, when I want to go shooting at a range (although I'm sure my brother in law wouldn't mind keeping my rifle well fed with a steady diet of .223/5.56mm).

I'm going to try to get ahold of another lawyer, to get a second opinion on the matter.



See, here's my thinking, in regards to the fourth amendment. The amendment states, "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". The thing is, it was MY property seized, on a warrant issued relating to my roommate. They had no probable cause to issue a warrant for MY property, IMO. They did have probable cause to issue a warrant for property owned by my ROOMMATE, however. That's why the title and OP mention the 4th amendment.

And I'd prefer to keep the hardcore arguments about the second amendment in the background, if possible (AKA I'd rather this not turn into the same statistics war we usually see).

OK, I'm not going to give a deep analysis at this time, but my general impression is that NO, your rights haven't been violated.

As to your 4th Amendment rights, a warrant was issued and it appears to be based on probable cause -- your roommate's threat to another's life with witnesses more than suffices. Other than an argument that the law in question under which the warrant was issued is unconsitutional (which I'll discuss later), there doesn't appear to be any basis for challenging the warrant. As a general rule, search pursuant to warrant supported by probable cause does not violate the 4th Amendment. (None of the exceptions to that rule seem to apply here.)

Your argument that the gun is yours and was in your space doesn't really make a whole lot of difference regarding the validity of the search. The police had probable cause to believe your roommate had access to the weapon. That is all is required, here. You may be able to convince a judge in the CGS § 29-38c hearing that your roommate doesn't pose an imminent threat in regards to your weapon, but that won't make the initial search illegal.

As to your Second Amendment argument, you have a long haul to get anywhere. Unless the Supreme Court decides the current case before it differently, the law in Connecticut is currently that (1) the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee an individual right to bear arms and (2), even if it did, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states -- only to the federal government.

But setting those thorny legal problems aside, you'd have to argue that, even when your weapon poses a threat of imminent harm to people's safety, you have an absolute right to possession of your gun. I don't think that will fly. Taking guns away from those who pose an imminent threat of harm doesn't seem to be an unreasonable violation of the Second Amendment.

As to the CGS § 29-38c law itself, you could argue that it on its face violates your rights and thus it shouldn't be able to justify the seizure of your weapon. But what right does the law violate? You're back to your Second Amendment argument, which isn't very persuasive.

If anyone has any objections to or questions about my take on this, feel free to say so. I may not be able to respond (as I am leaving on a trip tomorrow) but I will try.

Alright, I won't be able to update this any more, per my lawyer's instructions. Thanks to all the people that gave advice. My lawyer did give me permission to post the police report that started this all, as it's nothing that I haven't already posted in this thread. The names and addresses have been blacked out, in order to protect everyones privacy.

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/8260/policereportkp7.jpg

You're a terrible person. :)

You're a terrible person. :)

Thank you, I try. :D

This might be one of those rare occasions when the mods will grant a thread lock to the OP.

GM has legal advice not to discuss the matter further (as I guessed might happen.) That might trump the usual reason for refusing a thread-lock, which is that it could be intented to stifle a debate which the OP is losing. That hasn't been happening (kudos to all who addressed the actual topic and offered good advice, and sorry Aelosia that I lost my temper with you.)

We can and no doubt will debate the Second Amendment in some other thread. I think it's a good idea for GM to request a thread lock. Anyone dissenting?

This might be one of those rare occasions when the mods will grant a thread lock to the OP.

GM has legal advice not to discuss the matter further (as I guessed might happen.) That might trump the usual reason for refusing a thread-lock, which is that it could be intented to stifle a debate which the OP is losing. That hasn't been happening (kudos to all who addressed the actual topic and offered good advice, and sorry Aelosia that I lost my temper with you.)

We can and no doubt will debate the Second Amendment in some other thread. I think it's a good idea for GM to request a thread lock. Anyone dissenting?

This thread is still good for discussing 2nd and 4th amendment rights, and the law mentioned in the OP. Did you check out the copy of the police report? The link is here: http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/8260/policereportkp7.jpg

I was violated, but you don't see me complaining about the horrible ways in which it happened on an internet forum in full view of the public where thousands of people will read about it. But I'm here, so I might as well...

To be fair though, you were not thare. He may have said that in anger and the guy took it seriously.

It would seem your roommate ought to have the right to face his accusers...

It would seem your roommate ought to have the right to face his accusers...

I'm sure he will, when the court hears the matter.

This thread is still good for discussing 2nd and 4th amendment rights, and the law mentioned in the OP. Did you check out the copy of the police report? The link is here: http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/8260/policereportkp7.jpg

Arrrrggggh. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

If you're serious about discussing the law mentioned in the OP, you could find a link for it that actually gets served. This (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/olr/htm/2001-r-0896.htm) didn't work for me last night and isn't working now. I get a timeout, it's either borked or not serving to me because I'm in Australia.

Right, I'm going to talk to someone else now. Someone who isn't a gun-toting prankster.

I see where what works well for me may not work well for you.

They are my property and my responsibilty-thats why they are here.

I'm not sure why this is such an issue with you-maybe its more with me,than the subject? I dont know-I dont recall butting heads with you before.

<snip>
I assure you, I have no issue with you. In fact, the topic of this side conversation isn't even an "issue" for me. I only pursued it because:

-- the relative safety of guns in the home had been brought up in the thread, so I felt there was some relevance; and

-- I was presented with a described situation about which I had some safety-related critiques to give because I saw a few points where I saw what I thought of as practical problems.

I realized that I did not have full information about your personal living situation, so I was just commenting on what you specifically said, just as I would if you had presented a hypothetical situation for discussion.

Now since I don't think there is a way to continue with it without getting into too much of the details of your home arrangements -- which are no one else's business and also not relevant -- I'm happy to drop it. :)

April Fools?

Carnivorous Lickers, I can see why Muravyets is dropping this, it isn't reasonable to expect you to disclose all the factors in why you'd keep such a secret.

Imagining myself in your wife's place (not in every way of course!) if she or one of your kids were to somehow find the gun safe and ask you what's in it ... I wouldn't be satisfied with you trying to prove that it was perfectly safe. I'd experience that as a huge breach of trust.

And another thing ... you ARE discussing this remarkably openly to the entire world. Surely you don't believe "internet anonymity" is secure at the level you seem to be applying to this "secret" in your private life.

And this "by luck,came to acquire some valuable guns that I never would have bought on the market for retail. Some are very valuable" sounds rather fishy. Like you're painting a picture of a psycho with a horde of stolen weapons ...

*sniff*
*sniff*
*sniff*
*sniff, sniff*

April Fools?

I nominate myself "biggest stooge" on this one. I spat at someone for not taking it seriously enough!

Ouuuuuuch.

April Fools?

Heh, I had actually mentally moved on from the OP's story already, so I totally missed the admission until now.

I nominate myself "biggest stooge" on this one. I spat at someone for not taking it seriously enough!

Ouuuuuuch.

I have an advantage. I remember a thread very much like this one last year. I think it may have even had the same OP.

I have an advantage. I remember a thread very much like this one last year. I think it may have even had the same OP.

Yes. Last year, it was about a dog bite. I pulled the hat trick. Three successful April Fools Day jokes in three years.

Arrrrggggh. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

If you're serious about discussing the law mentioned in the OP, you could find a link for it that actually gets served. This (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2001/rpt/olr/htm/2001-r-0896.htm) didn't work for me last night and isn't working now. I get a timeout, it's either borked or not serving to me because I'm in Australia.

Right, I'm going to talk to someone else now. Someone who isn't a gun-toting prankster.

I'm still working on finding a better link to the actual law. But the link works for me.

ETA: Found it: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/pub/Chap529.htm#Sec29-38c.htm

Yes, your rights were violated. Unfortunately you're going to lose to the system, because the people who handle the law break it most frequently and get away with it most frequently.

3100 FPS, actually. My rifle is .223/5.56 mm, and I shoot 55 grain projectiles.

Wow that's funny, so does mine.. I bet it cant hit an point target at 550 yards though ;).

Wow that's funny, so does mine.. I bet it cant hit an point target at 550 yards though ;).

What do you shoot?

Not really. That's how the law works. You just have to deal with it.

That sounds like the biggest fucking violation of Constitutional rights I've heard in a long time.

I got livid when some sack of fucking shit neighbor called the cops on my and my buddies because I was carrying a dangerous pair of, you guessed it, fucking 12 dollar nunchucks.

Man that's dumb. 10:30 with some warrant that doesn't make an ounce of sense? You even have a gun safe and gun lock to prevent it from being fired? You sure as hell are more responsible than 90% of other gun owners.

Unfortunately, the law will probably get away with it since they have their little loopholes that they can use.

Unfortunately, the law will probably get away with it since they have their little loopholes that they can use.

It's pretty damn hard to get away with something that didn't happen.

It's pretty damn hard to get away with something that didn't happen.

If anyone can get away with something that didn't happen, I have faith that the state of CT can do it.

:D

Sometimes the best way to get away with something is to convince people that nothing happened. *nod* :)

April fools got me!

The government here has superceded his right to own a firearm solely as the result of another person's actions. He has been punished, his property taken away, and his hobby stopped thanks to a presumptuous nanny-state, the same kind you are advocating for and wishing to 'err on the side of caution'.

Your thoughts and feelings are mutually exclusive. His firearm has been confiscated and locked up; now he cannot adequately defend his life. After all, it was yourself who said that the right to live should supercede all others - state troopers have now made that much more difficult as the result of punishing him for his room mate's actions. The state should have to make the case that there was a immediate danger, not G.M. to prove his innocence. There's a reason why our founders set up the government that way.Actually, no. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13575901&postcount=26)

Actually, no. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13575901&postcount=26)

FUCK YOU GUYS, LOL

Personally I think that unless you live in the middle of actual wilderness, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun as a private citizen. Police officers are a different thing. Even army people should have guns only when they are either actively practicing to be or actually being on the front line.

Personally I think that unless you live in the middle of actual wilderness, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun as a private citizen. Police officers are a different thing. Even army people should have guns only when they are either actively practicing to be or actually being on the front line.

Why even them? Police and military personnel should be armed with pies. *nod*

Why even them? Police and military personnel should be armed with pies. *nod*

Water balloons would be my favourite, but since in the modern world some people assume that since guns have been invented, someone must use them, hence police and army.

And if you say water balloons are not weapons, you've never frozen one. :p

Personally I think that unless you live in the middle of actual wilderness, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun as a private citizen. Police officers are a different thing. Even army people should have guns only when they are either actively practicing to be or actually being on the front line.

Governments killed ~ 262 million people last century alone, and you find it fitting for them to effectively be the only ones who should have guns. Interesting.

Why even them? Police and military personnel should be armed with pies. *nod*

An irresponsible suggestion, LG.

Sure, today its just cream pies, the occasional merangue.

But what will you do when things escalate, and more exotic ammunition is brought to bear? German Chocolate, or Pecan...

Or god forbid, the semi-jacketed frozen pie...

Water balloons would be my favourite, but since in the modern world some people assume that since guns have been invented, someone must use them, hence police and army.

And if you say water balloons are not weapons, you've never frozen one. :p

i know what you mean....:mp5:

An irresponsible suggestion, LG.

Sure, today its just cream pies, the occasional merangue.

But what will you do when things escalate, and more exotic ammunition is brought to bear? German Chocolate, or Pecan...

Or god forbid, the semi-jacketed frozen pie...

If pies are outlawed, only outlaws will have pies. *nod*

Governments killed ~ 262 million people last century alone, and you find it fitting for them to effectively be the only ones who should have guns. Interesting.

And the militia will stop the trained government forces?

That has happened when?

And don't factor in external factors like being supplied by a foreign nation. I mean like if Red Dawn happened right here and now, would we be able to drive the Commies back with what we have at this current time?

2nd amendment rights being violated is questionable.
the 2nd amendment has not be fully defined in the courts yet. aka individual Versus militia gun ownership... and there is also the question if this amendment restricts the federal government solely or restricts both the states and federal goverment.

2nd amendment rights being violated is questionable.
the 2nd amendment has not be fully defined in the courts yet. aka individual Versus militia gun ownership... and there is also the question if this amendment restricts the federal government solely or restricts both the states and federal goverment.It is actually non-existant, considering that this was an April Fool's joke.

It is actually non-existant, considering that this was an April Fool's joke.

From what I can gather, a pretty good one too. I mean, people are still seriously commenting on the OP 2 days later. :D

From what I can gather, a pretty good one too. I mean, people are still seriously commenting on the OP 2 days later. :D

Indeed. :D

Most believeably constructed April Fools' Joke I've seen in a long time. Much kudos. :cool:

Indeed. :D

Most believeably constructed April Fools' Joke I've seen in a long time. Much kudos. :cool:

You must not have read my April Fools day thread from last year, then. It was pretty good, too. :D

Indeed. :D

Most believeably constructed April Fools' Joke I've seen in a long time. Much kudos. :cool:

You must not have read my April Fools day thread from last year, then. It was pretty good, too. :D

Wow, you had me fooled...

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Dziekuje.gif__http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/respect.gif__http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Dziekuje.gif

From what I can gather, a pretty good one too. I mean, people are still seriously commenting on the OP 2 days later. :DDepends on your definition of "good". If you mean "convincing", yeah, that it was. You may want to add Stewie to the OP, though. This seems fine for an April Fool's, but on other days its probably trolling.

And the militia will stop the trained government forces?

That has happened when?

And don't factor in external factors like being supplied by a foreign nation. I mean like if Red Dawn happened right here and now, would we be able to drive the Commies back with what we have at this current time?

Does it matter that a militia stop an organized army through support? No, not really. There are many other factors involved in giving the people (in your example, a militia) arms besides open warfare with a heavily armed government.

Although led by 'Army' officers, the colonial militia almost defeated the British at Bunker Hill; this is well prior to a declaration of war by the Continental Congress and thus the support of the French.

I'll go onto even further that your argument is without merit-what does having another government support have to do with anything that we are discussing? It is no different than having more arms and funding which obviously requires some sort of supplier. It is better to get outside help, OK. Who cares? What does it have to do with the discussion?

Depends on your definition of "good". If you mean "convincing", yeah, that it was. You may want to add Stewie to the OP, though. This seems fine for an April Fool's, but on other days its probably trolling.

Actually, this thread could still be useful for talking about 2nd and 4th amendment rights, as it pertains to that law (the law is real). Putting Stewie in the OP might scare people away from a legitimate discussion on the matter.

Actually, this thread could still be useful for talking about 2nd and 4th amendment rights, as it pertains to that law (the law is real). Putting Stewie in the OP might scare people away from a legitimate discussion on the matter.Well, if you add a sentence at the beginning saying: "The situation described here did not happen, as it was an April Fool's joke, but feel free to join the discussion on the 2nd and 4th ammendment rights," they might be fooled into thinking we're not discussing the joke =P