“Second Amendment extremist training camp” in newspeak.Originally Posted by gringop
“Second Amendment extremist training camp” in newspeak.
It's not illegal to belong to an extremist group. That doesn't mean you have to ignore that information when combined with other factors. Think of a DUI investigation. It's not illegal to swerve in your lane, nor is it illegal to be unable to keep a consistent speed, nor is it illegal to be slow to recognize a light has turned green. Yet a reasonably prudent officer would take those indications as reasonable suspicion of DUI, which is illegal. If the investigation determined there was PC for a DUI arrest, all of those perfectly legal factors are going to be included in the PC for the obvious reasons.
It's quite possible the gov't won't be able to prove their case at the upcoming court hearing. That's why there *is* due process for these things. However as I'm sure you know (but others not involved in "the system" might not) the establishment of reasonable suspicion or probable cause isn't the entirety of the case. We're legally and ethically bound to present exculpatory information but not all information showing guilt. A 3" case file gets distilled down to a few pages for a PC affidavit. We'll simply have to wait and see.
However I disagree, based just on what's present, that this is solely due to association and political beliefs. I can believe in martyrdom via suicide bombing and be legally fine. I can't start gathering materials, telling people what an awesome idea it is to kill civilians as a suicide bomber, recruit others to do the same, and make some test runs. Reasonable people can differ on exactly where the line for "conspiracy to commit..." is, but I think we'll all agree that there is a line somewhere between mere belief and the bomb going off. Without recognizing there is a line, we'd have to wait for the bomb to explode before doing anything about it. As such, I think we can disagree on if he crossed the line or not but it's disingenuous to argue his membership/association is the sole reason for this petition.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Yes. I noted that even Seattle LE admits to the 500k backlog for WA state DOL registration paper on legally purchased guns, but I totally digress.
How about this, 7 years in a possible future?
"Xxxx is a known participant in multiple forums dedicated to violence with weapons, and training/practice with these weapons to better effect violence. Xxxx has *tens of thousands of posts, including as a member of a splinter cell forum dedicated to effective interpersonal violence with firearms and knives that advocates, repeatedly, among other things "taint stabbing". Photos recovered from xxxx’s social media prove that he has flown across the country to train in remote locations with top proponents of "taint stabbing," and records of xxxx’s Amazon purchases going back two decades indicate regular purchases of books and material goods related to up close interpersonal violence, including specialized knives designed specifically for the type of violence advocated by the groups that xxxx is a long-standing member of. Xxxx’s Amazon records also show numerous purchases of unregistered "LCAMs" along with books advocating the overthrow of state-accredited educational institutional leadership by informal bands of transient laborers. Social media posts by xxxx regularly claim that both major national political parties are corrupted. Xxxx regularly creates archaic music rituals dedicated to long-dead white european historical figures, including avowed and documented white supremacists. Clearly xxxxrepresents a danger to the public, and we petition to have his firearms removed under ERPO."
Look, I’m not saying that this guy isn’t a complete shitbag. If *anyone* deserves to have his guns yanked, pre-crime, it’s this guy. In fact, that is *exactly* what I’m saying. The question going forward in the future is: does *anyone* not deserve it? And if so, who, how and why?
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
What is a permanent seizure based on? What is the standard and what is the test?That quote jumped out at me, too.
Cue up that guy sweating over the button choice meme again: there is not much that I have come to dislike more than PacNW neo-nazi skinhead groups, but I’m not exactly going to be "sleeping easier knowing they have a team empowered to enforce firearm surrender court orders." Where one sits on that is clearly dependent upon how much one respects the particular court, and process.
via Imgflip Meme Generator
ETA: We’ve also gotta take the long view on this. Of course, the first highly-publicized confiscation would be enacted on an extremely distasteful motherfucker. I mean, who’s gonna argue in defense of an avowed racist nazi? The optics on this test look better than Scarjo in her avengers costume. Next will be a few more "alt-right" test cases, then maybe down the road a watershed event taking guns from a muslim fundamentalist; if that passes muster, then christian religious right folks, then right wing intellectuals, then left-wing libertarians, then farmers, then any college intellectuals with tenure that remain...
And yet, that is not a specific enough threat for criminal prosecution in the United States.
If it’s not enough to make an arrest which is basically the seizure of a person under the fourth amendment why should it be enough to seize someone’s property under the fourth amendment?
We were probably typing at about the same time. I'd just ask you to read the response above yours.
I don't buy into slippery slope arguments and won't argue for or against a hypothetical future in lieu of what's actually happening.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Barring specific information about acts in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy there is nothing illegal about going to a “hate camp” just like there is nothing illegal about going to a Klan rally, or going to one of the Huey P Newton gun club’s monthly firearms and tactics trainings where they practice killing cops during traffic stops.
There is a certain appeal to getting a red flag order to seize the guns of the people who trained Micah Johnson, The Dallas police shooter but the constitution applies to everyone like it or not.
You have made some strong arguments in favor of Indiana’s red flag laws as they have been applied previously in Indiana. However none of those conditions are present in the Seattle case.
Last edited by HCM; 10-19-2019 at 02:06 PM.
I noticed in the photos accompanying the news article that they also seized a couple of 80% lowers that are unfinished.
Is an Unfinished 80% lower a firearm under Washington state law? I know it is not under federal law. As such seizing those 80% lowers may have exceeded the authority in the court order.
Petition to get a hearing: Reasonable belief (reasonable fear in their state's language)
Hearing must be held within 14 days.
Preponderance of the evidence (civil trial burden of proof) at the hearing allows for a 1 year term. The factors to be considered are listed: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=7.94.040
Every year, the respondent can petition for the removal of the ERPO. Preponderance of the evidence remains the burden, but it is shifted to the respondent (basically they must show something has changed and they are no longer a threat)
I don't think there is a provision for "permanent" seizure in WA unless the respondent never challenges it, but I could be wrong.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
You may very well be correct and the state may lose at the hearing. There is certainly a gap between reasonable fear and preponderance of the evidence, so granting of a hearing doesn't equate to winning a hearing.
I do not think anything listed would be sufficient to trigger the Laird Law in Indiana, FWIW.
And, to add, I'm not arguing that this guy is going to win or lose. I'm just arguing that this isn't an example of "no due process" and is not an example of "wrong association only". The state may lose, which in and of itself shows there is due process. One can argue how fair and impartial the judge/court will be, but one can always argue that about any court or criminal justice system and why we have such a deeply layered court system.
Last edited by BehindBlueI's; 10-19-2019 at 02:20 PM.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Reply With Quote