I went to my favorite gun shop last week, and asked about ordering a Bushmaster 50 cal. rifle. At first he thought I was B.S.-ing him, until he realized I was serious. Then he got really weird and defensive and asked me why I wanted it?

When I told him, I had a legal right to buy it without justifying why I wanted it...he said he have to talk to the store manager about special ordering it, and wanted my drivers license.

( which is odd, because they have had them in the store in the past, and they were for sale to the general public, pre B.O.'s election )

I told him, I would show it to him when the gun was in the store, and I was going to plunk down my five grand for it, and then he could fill out his bill of sale paper work.

He told me he wouldn't initiate the order without clearing it with the police first. (que that to mean ATF )

BINGO!

Originally posted by Detailed Perfection
Let us theorize momentarily ...

If the guy had gone back to his job where he had been laid off and shot the place up and killed some people, hell even if he just killed one person, and then the story came out the the local law enforcement had records of his multi-gun purchase just days before he went on a shooting spree ....

How many of you would be blaming the police force for not acting on their information and stepping in to intervene to stop this mans plans of recourse?

Police step in and stop this man from possibly killing people -
"The police don't care about us, they're out to take away our constitutional rights!"

Police do nothing about the info they have and this man kills people -
"The police don't care about us. They're out to kill us!"


So, which side of the arguement are you going to fall in to?

If we are going to ask WHAT IF questions....

What if he had gotten a concealed carry permit or some hunting licenses a decade or two before getting laid off? Would that justify the police raid?

Originally posted by deanorw
Well no that is not all we have. We were advised that he was a disgruntled employee. Before the gun purchase became a big red flag, he caused other red flags with his former employer to get reported in the first place.
There was an initial catalyst to this event that was left out of the article, but at some point it prompted a call to the police. The guy did something to elevate concerns.

That's such a vague concept. Most people who get fired or laid off are "disgruntled" about it. Not many are going to be happy about it afterall. That opens up a lot of people to be legally abducted and put into pscyh wards for observation. Afterall, there are millions of people being axed on a regular basis. Lots of "disgruntled" workers out there.

Originally posted by deanorw
I'm not sure why so many are against the actions of the police here.

Lets say you own a business. You fire a guy for whatever reason. The guy goes off and threatens you in some way. You get a bad feeling the guy is going to go postal.

What do you do? You call the police. Tell them how the guy acted and what he said. The police look into the guy and just found out he purchased 3 semi automatic firearms right after you fired him.

To me that spells an automatic red flag. If you owned that business and had family working there, you would thank your lucky stars the police intervened before anyone got hurt.

Infringe on rights? I don't think so. This is the police diffusing a possible serious situation here with nobody getting hurt.

Using your scenario for example, let's take a battered woman. She finally gets the courage and breaks it off with the abuser. He goes off and threatens her in some way.

What will the police do? Typically, if they do anything at all, they will just refer her to a domestic violence shelter/hotline and/or recommend she get a restraining order (which they tend to not even enforce if he does break it). If he goes out and gets weapons legally, the cops tend to not care.

The Supreme Court has even ruled that the cops don't have to protect a battered woman.

So, why exactly should a business, which should just hire its own security, get police protection while a battered woman, who is statistically more likely to have something occur after breaking things off than a business (tens of millions of laid off workers and how many rampages??), gets none?

Since the batterer is already known to "go postal" then the danger should be much more obvious than that of a laid off worker who thus far has not been established to have a problem.

Originally posted by Strype
They wouldn't take his guns away if they didn't have a reason. We can "IF" all day long, if you like. Point is, they obviously feel they could be saving lives by taking away his power to "go postal." They know much more about the case than we do, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't act in the way did, without good reason. He can get his guns back later. The people he may murder, cannot get their lives back later. You wouldn't defend this man if you worked where he did, so don't pretend that you would.

This attitude would sure help a jury pool.

'Sure your honor, I would do great on this jury. I would have no problem sentencing this man to the death penalty. Afterall, the defendant wouldn't be here if he wasn't guilty.'

This is fairly disturbing.

As you can see all it takes is for a negative report of concern to get the ball rolling on an action like this.

Technically, that makes it a he said/she said situation with the police acting on a rumor about what someone "might" do.

Paranoia about what someone "might" do does not constitute Probable Cause, even if you might want it to.

This logic holds for arresting children because they might steal a candy bar in a store.

I am not saying that stealing is somehow equivalent to shooting someone. It is the "might" part that is disturbing and inherently unconstitutional. King George must be laughing!

Would we be talking about it had it gone the other way? Sure. But no one has a crystal ball stuck up thier fanny which they consult frequently. For all we know, this guy may indeed had mayhem on his mind when he made the purchases, but that's what the cooling off period is ABOUT.

Also we do not know if the above were true, that he hadn't changed his mind and simply decided to keep the weapons. HE NEVER HAD A CHANCE to show that either way.

It seems from the report that he came out after a simple phone call. There is no report of a standoff. I say he acted normally and and was treated unjustly.

Our world is not Romper Room. We don't need to make it this way.

I'm thinking that the guilty party of some unjust action at work was the one that made the phone call thinking that they would be harmed because down inside themselves, they felt they deserved it. Such a person acts from guilt, the catholic disease.

There are no reports of verbal threats.

This is another case of the Anti Americans hard at work. Welcome to Castro's Cuba, Marcos' Phillippines and the other nations where rumors destroy lives **permanently** and people are not free in their deliberations and pursuits.

Perhaps some people ought to be hung because they "might" become stupid.

Did you read the line in the article where the guy says they were "Instead of being reactive, we took a proactive approach," OSP Sgt. Jeff Proulx said.

Really? And can you tell me that you know the difference? Jeff?

Shades of inverted values: calling what is good bad, and the bad good. Violate the guy because he... might.

Ok. So if they didn't do this, and he went in there and killed off the object of his ire... so what? It is only your histrionics that would make a big deal of it.

Oh yeah, but:

Better safe than sorry.

And:

Better impatience than patience.
Better a moron than a thinker.
Better no rights at all than a Constitution.
Better being afraid to live than being afraid to die.
Better foolishness than wisdom.

ATS: You might as well BAN ME NOW, cuz I "might" tick off a sissy.

Nope, this man was kidnapped by a cowardly crew of morons. If it were in California, they'd find some way to give him a felony and take all his property that are weapons and never allow him to get one again.

Because of a RUMOR? Or what he MIGHT do?

Because someone mistreated him and was afraid he might get what he "imagined" he deserved? (or might happen)

imagination... that must be the key!

yeah right.

OF COURSE, and I'm sure you can tell... I didn't read the updated post above me here...

I'm glad they returned the property, but I still stand by my assertions. They had no legal footing.

I wish there was some way to prevent these sorts of actions.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by akalepos]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by akalepos]

[edit on 15-3-2010 by akalepos]

If this guy doesn't SUE THE HELL out of every cop that had a hand in this, he deserves what he got. " Safekeeping"?/ What?/The COPS simply STEAL your legally obtained property, throw you in a nut house, and after...thats right, AFTER the doctor says you are fine and that there is NO REASON to hold you, THEN the cops generously give back your property!!

Amazing...simply amazing that anyone could defend this. NO WARRANTS.

There are no warrants because there was no crime!! The cops did not have any legal means to grab this man and his guns....so they just DID IT!! Astounding gaul...the cops must think they are Gods...it sickens the civilized mind to read about such outrages.

On a false assumption...a totally unfounded assumption, a mans rights have been trampled.

SUE THEM FOR ALL THEY HAVE!!! SUE THEM FOR EVERY PENNY EVERYONE INVOLVED HAS!!!!

the ONLY way to stop this ILLEGAL and UNAMERICAN police state infamy is to sue them until they bleed money and the voters kick the top cops out and put in people who do not hate the Constitution.

The chief cop in this case, in my opinion, is a traitor and enemy of the Constitution....and he is UNapologetic!! No shame...but what else to expect from a cop?