Page 15 of 23 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 228

Thread: ATF raids polymer 80.

  1. #141
    Site Supporter Coyotesfan97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix Metro, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    That's something I always addressed with new detectives (our beat officers don't do their own search warrants except for blood draws).

    "I'll just come back with a warrant" is coercion however "I'll seek a warrant, which a judge may or may not grant" is not. At least locally, our prosecutor was fine with that wording and nobody ever took it to a suppression hearing so apparently the defense was as well.
    Quote Originally Posted by DMF13 View Post
    Yeah, I always explain to the new guys that if they mention getting a warrant to a suspect they need to be very clear they're only asking a judge for the warrant, and they must explain the judge might not grant it.

    Although, generally I recommend avoiding it altogether, just to save the hassle of a suppression motion/hearing, since the burden is on the government to prove consent was voluntary.
    Iíll admit itís been a long time since I did one but we were always trained not to even mention getting a warrant.

    I donít ever remember personally going to a suppression hearing on that issue but Iím pretty sure itís been raised here.

    At the same time I donít remember anything that would preclude using the format BBI suggested.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.* Thucydides 471BC

    "Hey! Let's be careful out there." Sgt Phil Esterhaus played by Michael Conrad

  2. #142
    IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Coyotesfan97 View Post
    At the same time I donít remember anything that would preclude using the format BBI suggested.
    My state is actually more restrictive then federal case law. We have "Pirtle rights" which are similar to Miranda rights but for searches. They apply to an in custody suspect and must be read prior to them consenting to a search. Like Miranda, if they aren't in custody then it's not required. Since we're required to educate suspects, I simply included it as part of that education. For felonies, I *very* seldom relied on consent and for homicides we, as department policy, never do (or rely on many other warrant exceptions) just to avoid suppression hearings.

    I tended to use it more when I had a "victim" I didn't believe and the crime was going to be false reporting. The store clerk who I suspected stole the deposit and called in a fake robbery to cover it up or the guy who obviously shot himself in the thigh but was calling in a drive-by sort of things. I just wanted to clear those and move on with my "real" cases.
    Important rule change regarding political discussion here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....58#post1151858

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

  3. #143
    "...whatever a rifle upper on a pistol lower is"

    Wouldn't that just be a long barreled pistol, like those revolvers with the monstrously long barrels ('Buntline'??)?

  4. #144
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    The 603
    Quote Originally Posted by DMF13 View Post
    It is frustrating to read threads like this, where people use legal terms, like "constructive possession," and "constructive intent," when neither has anything to do with the ability to construct an object,.yet that is how they are being used here. There was even a claim made here that the "Thompson/Center" case (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/504/505/) was a "constructive possession" case, when it had nothing to do with the issue of "constructive possession."

    We went over this in painstaking detail in this thread: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....old#post452818

    As for "constructive intent," I don't have my copy of Black's Law Dictionary handy, but I'll try to find it later, and hopefully get a better definition/exolanation, but in the mean time I'll offer this from "find law":

    https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/intent.html

    "constructive intent:
    intent that is inferred to exist (as from willfulness or recklessness) in relation to an act"
    (sic)

    For example, someone sets a fire with the intent to destroy property, and commit insurance fraud, but had no intent to kill anyone, yet someone dies as a result of the fire. Their " actual intent" was to.commit financial fraud, but it can be inferred that the wilfull, and/or reckless, act of setting the fire, had the foreseeable outcome of injuring, or killing someone, even though the person who set the fire may not have had the "actual intent" to kill someone, but had the "constructive intent" to do so. Which would allow for prosecution and conviction for murder.

    So could we please stop using terms, that have actual specific legal definitions, improperly?
    I never would have thought people were using it in the sense of constructing. Then again, that was probably covered in one of the few CJ classes in which I was awake. Possession of two parts can show intent to perform fuckery is how I always read it, but IANAL.
    Last edited by HeavyDuty; 12-16-2020 at 05:17 PM.
    Ken

    BBI: ...Ēyou better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weirdĒ...
    revchuck38: ...Ēmo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.Ē

  5. #145
    IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by whomever View Post
    "...whatever a rifle upper on a pistol lower is"

    Wouldn't that just be a long barreled pistol, like those revolvers with the monstrously long barrels ('Buntline'??)?
    "Buntline AR" should be a thing if it isn't. But I phrased it like that because I realized I don't actually know what it'd be.
    Important rule change regarding political discussion here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....58#post1151858

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

  6. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric_L View Post
    What if I have a rifle and a battery powered angle grinder? That rifle is readily converted into a SBR.... Iím only partially being facetious. And no I am not trying to give you a hard time.
    Quote Originally Posted by joshs View Post
    It's already legally a "firearm," so the "readily converted" language being discussed here isn't particularly relevant to your example. The definition of SBR does not contain similar language:

    The term ďshort-barreled rifleĒ means a rifle having one or more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than twenty-six inches.

    18 U.S.C.A. ß 921(a)(8).
    What Josh said.

    I was talking about the definition of a firearm...You're talking about NFA stuff.

  7. #147
    Site Supporter Coyotesfan97's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Phoenix Metro, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    My state is actually more restrictive then federal case law. We have "Pirtle rights" which are similar to Miranda rights but for searches. They apply to an in custody suspect and must be read prior to them consenting to a search. Like Miranda, if they aren't in custody then it's not required. Since we're required to educate suspects, I simply included it as part of that education. For felonies, I *very* seldom relied on consent and for homicides we, as department policy, never do (or rely on many other warrant exceptions) just to avoid suppression hearings.

    I tended to use it more when I had a "victim" I didn't believe and the crime was going to be false reporting. The store clerk who I suspected stole the deposit and called in a fake robbery to cover it up or the guy who obviously shot himself in the thigh but was calling in a drive-by sort of things. I just wanted to clear those and move on with my "real" cases.

    We have/had (retirement confusion lol) a consent to search form that had to be signed prior to a consent to search. If it wasnít signed the consent needed to be taped. It sounds similar but it wasnít for in custody. If someone is in custody we pretty much gave up on consent.

    My Department has pretty much given up on consent for serious crimes. Theyíll just call in a couple Detectives and crank out a search warrant.
    The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.* Thucydides 471BC

    "Hey! Let's be careful out there." Sgt Phil Esterhaus played by Michael Conrad

  8. #148
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyDuty View Post
    I never would have thought people were using it in the sense of constructing. Then again, that was probably covered in one of the few CJ classes in which I was awake. Possession of two parts can show intent to perform fuckery is how I always read it, but IANAL.
    I think that can be the extra confusing part for people because these cases often do involve constructive rather than actual possession. So, some people use the term to mean legally sufficient possession (dominion and control), while others are using it to mean the "to construct" usage. Which should, from this day forth, be known as "Summon DMF13."

  9. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by Coyotesfan97 View Post
    Iíll admit itís been a long time since I did one but we were always trained not to even mention getting a warrant.

    I donít ever remember personally going to a suppression hearing on that issue but Iím pretty sure itís been raised here.

    At the same time I donít remember anything that would preclude using the format BBI suggested.
    Nothing wrong with saying you're going to attempt to get a warrant, or seek a warrant.

    I normally only mention it if someone asks what will happen if they refuse consent, and I feel like I have PC. I normally throw in a "I don't know if the judge will give me one..." or whatever. And I make sure the conversation is being recorded.

  10. #150
    Member DMF13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Nomad
    Quote Originally Posted by joshs View Post
    I think that can be the extra confusing part for people because these cases often do involve constructive rather than actual possession. So, some people use the term to mean legally sufficient possession (dominion and control), while others are using it to mean the "to construct" usage. Which should, from this day forth, be known as "Summon DMF13."
    I know you're a bit desperate to justify your previous incorrect use of constructive possession, and your false claims there was caselaw that supported your incorrect use. There really was no reason other than that for your anecdote about the person who argued the TC case, or this entire post, but give it up already. You got it wrong, and yet you continue to "double down" on that error. As I said earlier, you weren't the one who started the problem, in general, or on the other thread in particular, you're just the one who won't quit, despite clearly being wrong on this topic.

    The term "constructive possession" has a specific meaning. Anyone who actually believes things like that are important, like many here who claim they care about the "meaning" of things, such as those relating to legal issues, including the Constitution, should stop incorrectly using, or defending the incorrect usage of, a term that has a very clear, and widely accepted, definition, especially in places like the courts.

    Alternatively, you can just say words/terms mean whatever you want, and whatever is convenient for you and your every whim, and their actual and accepted definitions are unimportant. I swear I've seen some people here complain about that approach, especially as it applies to legal issues.

    You can continue to desperately try to justify your incorrect use of the term "constructive possession," and make snide comments about "Summon(ing) DMF13," or perhaps you could just admit you got it wrong, and the term "constructive possession" has nothing at all to do with the ability construct an object, and just let it go.
    _______________
    "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •