ACLU Supports Gun Owner

[rushmc 18]

No
I would not leave him/her until I could get them help

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Reading the original article John linked to, it seems that Mr. Weinstein was distraught at the death of his wife, and mentioned to a sheriff's deputy that he was thinking of suicide using a gun ("blowing his head off" were the actual words).

That was just an off the cuff comment he made because of the screw-up over the processing of his wife's ashes. He had been trying to get them for three weeks so he could bury her, and he kept getting a run-around. It was an expression of his frustration, and not a serious suicide threat. He just wanted his wife's remains back.

Fair enough. Likely that is why the deputy just temporarily removed the guns, rather than having Mr. Weinstein taken for psychiatric evaluation. If I was at the DZ, and someone who I knew had just lost a close family member and was dealing with other issues made an off the cuff comment to the effect that "maybe today I won't bother to pull", I'd suggest (pointedly if necessary) that maybe they shouldn't be jumping today. If a person is determined to commit suicide, they'll find a way. On the other hand, sometimes people are momentarily overwhelmed, and perhaps all it takes is a steadying hand, even from a stranger, to prevent an irrevocable mistake.

Don

Per the article in the OP:
"Robert Weinstein's call to the medical examiner prompted a visit from a sheriff's deputy, who took the widower to a hospital for evaluation."

and:
"Butin said he had a doctor's letter certifying Weinstein is not a threat to himself. His client also has a clean Florida criminal record."

He was evaluated and cleared, and still had to sue the police to get his guns back.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Per the article in the OP:
"Robert Weinstein's call to the medical examiner prompted a visit from a sheriff's deputy, who took the widower to a hospital for evaluation."

and:
"Butin said he had a doctor's letter certifying Weinstein is not a threat to himself. His client also has a clean Florida criminal record."

He was evaluated and cleared, and still had to sue the police to get his guns back.

I'm presuming that part of that reluctance on the part of the police was their concern that, doctor's letter or no, the guy might nonetheless be dangerous, even if only to himself - and they didn't want it on their conscience if they gave him his guns back and then he went and did something tragic with them. The other part was simple protection from liability: if there's a court order that the police must obey, then the police can't be sued later on for "poor judgment" if something bad happens.

I think if I was the police dept's lawyer, and cared mainly about protecting my client (the police) from liability, I might advise them to stand pat and just wait for the court order. Then their ass is covered.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

"Butin said he had a doctor's letter certifying Weinstein is not a threat to himself. His client also has a clean Florida criminal record."

He was evaluated and cleared, and still had to sue the police to get his guns back.

There seems to be some disagreement about the process to get the guns returned. Mr. Weinstein and the ACLU felt they had to sue. On the other hand, from the original article:
"Mila Schwartzreich, assistant legal counsel for the Sheriff's Office, said her agency had no choice but to keep Weinstein's weapons. She said the Sheriff's Office was not objecting to returning the guns, but needed a court order first." That makes it seem that they needed a court order, more than just a note from the doctor for sure but not the same as having to sue. I wonder where the truth really lies.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Per the article in the OP:
"Robert Weinstein's call to the medical examiner prompted a visit from a sheriff's deputy, who took the widower to a hospital for evaluation."

and:
"Butin said he had a doctor's letter certifying Weinstein is not a threat to himself. His client also has a clean Florida criminal record."

He was evaluated and cleared, and still had to sue the police to get his guns back.

I'm presuming that part of that reluctance on the part of the police was their concern that, doctor's letter or no, the guy might nonetheless be dangerous, even if only to himself - and they didn't want it on their conscience if they gave him his guns back and then he went and did something tragic with them.

Possibly so - but still wrong.

Quote

The other part was simple protection from liability: if there's a court order that the police must obey, then the police can't be sued later on for "poor judgment" if something bad happens.

Also possible - I'd like to know what the actual laws or regulations are regarding return of impounded property.

Quote

I think if I was the police dept's lawyer, and cared mainly about protecting my client (the police) from liability, I might advise them to stand pat and just wait for the court order. Then their ass is covered.

Depending on IF a court order is actually required, that would probably be the safest bet. Conversely, if a court order is NOT required, it makes things look worse for the PD.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>So, you are obviously thinking of someone else, as it's not at all common to me.

Sorry, to be more specific:

"you can kill someone anyway with whatever happens to be available: clubs, knives, hammers, or lamps."

" I think they should ban forks as dangerous weapons."

"I wonder when Diane Feinstein will enact a law to ban knives, clubs and fists?"

"Ban Knives!"

"Ban Lazer Tag!"

"What are those Brits doing leaving all those dangerous assault-bricks laying around where thugs can pick them up and use them as murder weapons? Shouldn't they all be cemented into buildings?"

"Save the planet: Ban fireplaces!"

". . . we should also ban cars, buildings and ladders over five feet tall,
poisonous substances, matches and flammable liquids, pools and bath tubs, and lastly, gluttony."

Wow, you went to all that trouble, going back over 5 years, to prove that you were wrong about me and "spoons". Impressive.

The words "spoon" or "spoons" occur 8 times in messages from me, and 22 times in messages from you. Ha! Do you have some kind of obsession with spoons?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

"Butin said he had a doctor's letter certifying Weinstein is not a threat to himself. His client also has a clean Florida criminal record."

He was evaluated and cleared, and still had to sue the police to get his guns back.

There seems to be some disagreement about the process to get the guns returned. Mr. Weinstein and the ACLU felt they had to sue. On the other hand, from the original article:
"Mila Schwartzreich, assistant legal counsel for the Sheriff's Office, said her agency had no choice but to keep Weinstein's weapons. She said the Sheriff's Office was not objecting to returning the guns, but needed a court order first." That makes it seem that they needed a court order, more than just a note from the doctor for sure but not the same as having to sue. I wonder where the truth really lies.

Don

Perhaps the ACLU is helping him get the court order that the PD is requesting.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Fear of liability doesn't warrant seizure of property. I'm not convinced they're liable in the first place. This brings back the recent thread of the bedridden nut with a gun that the cops tazed to prevent possibility of her killing herself. Maybe we can simplify matters and say that this is not a obligation by the cops.

Just so I have this clear, you are stating an opinion that in a case where someone is threatening suicide, the police should do nothing. Do I have that right?

Don

People [should] have a right to self determination. If they want to kill themselves, they should have the option. It's murkier if the person is compromised by abrupt grief.

However, the police are not trained in this area. If the officer really thought it was likely, taking away the first method he mentioned isn't going to be successful. If you want to protect him from himself, you have to take him for evaluation. If instead you think it's a vague possibility, the kind action would be to say: "look, I'm going to take your gun for the week. Let's meet up in a week at the coffee shop and I'll give it back to you."

Forcing him to obtain doctor's notes, hiring lawyers, and forcing a court case is a considerable burden for a hunch.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that you don't have a right to rapid, effective police response when you need it. I don't see why it should be their responsibility to prevent people from killing themselves, unless they have reason to believe others would be at risk. Their work is hard enough without having this liability. I doubt it exists, but if it does, it's should be legislated away.

I think the ACLU may have viewed this more as a property seizure case, without due process, than a gun rights case. They've long worked on this issue.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

People [should] have a right to self determination. If they want to kill themselves, they should have the option.

Seems to be a topic that should be brought up more regularly. I mean, if abortion is ok (when some one else brings up the point of abortion) why should someone not be able to off themselves with a gun or any other way? To me anyway, it makes the point of using a gun mute. Thoughts?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,426]

Am I wrong? If you had a friend who threatened to hang themselves, and you went to try to stop him, would you remove his spoons, clubs, hammers, lamps, forks, fists, lazer tag pistols, bricks, fireplaces, cars, ladders, poisonous substances, pools, bath tubs and frozen pizzas?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Am I wrong? If you had a friend who threatened to hang themselves, and you went to try to stop him, would you remove his spoons, clubs, hammers, lamps, forks, fists, lazer tag pistols, bricks, fireplaces, cars, ladders, poisonous substances, pools, bath tubs and frozen pizzas?

I dont know
Are you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Am I wrong? If you had a friend who threatened to hang themselves, and you went to try to stop him, would you remove his spoons, clubs, hammers, lamps, forks, fists, lazer tag pistols, bricks, fireplaces, cars, ladders, poisonous substances, pools, bath tubs and frozen pizzas?

You are wrong to think that a spoon is a valid analogy for dangerous weapons like knives, clubs and fists, or other dangerous objects. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who has ever been killed by a spoon, either on purpose, or accidentally. You'd be better off giving up on defending this goofy idea.

If spoons frighten you that much, then going to public restaurants to eat must be positively terrifying to you.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Yep. And now that oldie is going to buy himself a more modern weapon, why not an AK-47 or similar? That will spare him to move his shivery fingers more than once.

oh look.... someone with almost no idea what it takes to purchase a fully automatic weapon!!

--
Rob

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Yep. And now that oldie is going to buy himself a more modern weapon, why not an AK-47 or similar? That will spare him to move his shivery fingers more than once.

oh look.... someone with almost no idea what it takes to purchase a fully automatic weapon!!

Yes, and ... ?

Over here, the simple folk does not know how to get one. So, I have no idea about it.

You surely exactly know how to do that over there, right?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

oh look.... someone with almost no idea what it takes to purchase a fully automatic weapon!!

Yes, and ... ?

Generally speaking, when people don't know what they're talking about, it's wise for them not to comment on those subjects in which they lack knowledge, and they refrain from doing so, so they don't say things that may be deemed foolish.

But I want to thank you for once again displaying your flawless logic and vast intelligence, rendering your comments irrefutable.

Quote

Over here, the simple folk does not know how to get one. So, I have no idea about it.

Who are "the simple folk"?

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yep. And now that oldie is going to buy himself a more modern weapon, why not an AK-47 or similar? That will spare him to move his shivery fingers more than once.

oh look.... someone with almost no idea what it takes to purchase a fully automatic weapon!!

Yes, and ... ?

Over here, the simple folk does not know how to get one. So, I have no idea about it.

You surely exactly know how to do that over there, right?

were I to enter into a discussion on gun laws in your country, I would do some research first, perhaps have a clue about the topic. I might suggest the same to you.

Clearly you were talking about a fully automatic weapon, but the majority of AK's sold in this country are semi-automatic. There is a long process (that involves local law enforcement approval) to purchase a fully automatic weapon that I'm sure has been discussed on this forum before. Were you to apply yourself, I'm certain you could find it here or elsewhere. Though I suppose it is possible that you would choose to not research the topic and remain uninformed.

--
Rob

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

buy himself a more modern weapon, why not an AK-47 or similar?

The mean the (modern weapon) AK 47 that was introduced in 1947 and has changed very very little from it's original design?

You probably should be more familiar with subjects before you try to discuss them.

[billvon 2,426]

>You are wrong to think . . .

Can you answer the question I asked?

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

oh look.... someone with almost no idea what it takes to purchase a fully automatic weapon!!

Yes, and ... ?

Generally speaking, when people don't know what they're talking about, it's wise for them not to comment on those subjects in which they lack knowledge, and they refrain from doing so, so they don't say things that may be deemed foolish.

But I want to thank you for once again displaying your flawless logic and vast intelligence, rendering your comments irrefutable.

Quote

Over here, the simple folk does not know how to get one. So, I have no idea about it.

Who are "the simple folk"?

Generally speaking ... ...it's wise in SC ....Thanks for that

And that coming from the Texan who never left his corral borders, never saw another lappet of the world but, pretending to know something.

I still have no idea where to purchase a Maschinengewehr here in Germany, you've got a hint for me? If not, you quickly should leave that SC thread - you know: " ... it's wise for them not to comment on ...."

*Simple folk ?* Folks like you and - others.

Just a tip: You are starting to repeat yourself in wording. Not a healthy signal

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 2,426]

Your one warning. Enough with the personal comments.

[mnealtx 0]

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[christelsabine 1]

OK. I'm sorry.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

....
You know, the lumpenprole.

What's that?? Can I eat it?

Jeez, *folk/s* just means what it says: Folk/s. Simple folk = the average (no: not GI Joe) John Doe in the streets.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Who are "the simple folk"?

And that coming from the Texan who never left his corral borders, never saw another lappet of the world but, pretending to know something.

*Simple folk ?* Folks like you and - others.

First, you have no idea how well-traveled I might be. So once again, you are making presumptions that are not true. You've been told this before, several times. The fact that you choose to keep ignoring that, and continue with your stereotyping anyway, says something about yourself.

Second, even if someone has not left their own country, that doesn't make them ignorant about things that take place in their own country, and that's what was under discussion when you made this comment. Visiting Germany or other countries is not a prerequisite to knowing something about U.S. gun laws.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Over here, the simple folk does not know how to get one. So, I have no idea about it.

I still have no idea where to purchase a Maschinengewehr here in Germany...

*Simple folk ?* Folks like you and - others.

Simple folk = the average (no: not GI Joe) John Doe in the streets.

Calling folks "simple" can be an insult here in America, being the equivalent of calling them stupid. That's probably why you got the warning from the moderator. But I'll write that one off due to English not being your first language and culture. (Which is ironic, because you often profess your superiority for being well-traveled and knowing other cultures.)

So now you say that "simple folks" just means average citizens. You state that one of the things that defines simple folks is that they do not know how to purchase a machinegun. And you put YOURSELF in that category.

But then you go on to say that "simple folks" are "like you and others", but not including yourself, as if you are somehow better than simple folks.

And here's another irony for you. Many of the people that you are arguing against here, DO know how to purchase a machinegun, legally, in the U.S. Therefore, by your own definition, they are more knowledgeable about this subject than the average simple folks, and more knowledgeable than yourself in your own country. So, instead of you possessing superior knowledge to them, it's actually the other way around. And that conclusion is reached using your own words. Isn't that funny!