FWPD Takes Weapon and ISP Pulls LTCH

[CathyInBlue]

Yes. Just about everything. Most media accounts of conflicts like this are as looking through a mirror darkly. This is not just the mirror, but also a gauze curtain, a prism, and a badly distorted lens. I could not testify in a court of law about anything I witnessed through such a fog of media as this story evinces.

 

[T-DOGG]

I saw a thread just a few days ago about the fwpd and a guy who was just openly carrying his weapon. I guess fwpd is dirty. Maybe they should worry about the crack houses.

I think I know that guy.

 

[T-DOGG]

I'm not bristling about anything, there just isn't near enough good infomation in the article to have an opinion about much of anything. The author didn't even put in the article how the individual informed the tenant that he was armed or the incident surrounding that, which makes me highly suspect of the entire situation (and the article). What I can tell you, is that the ISP doesn't revoke LTCH's very easily and there is an appeals process to having one revoked or suspended. If they revoked it instead of suspending it, I suspect there was very good reason for it and that he possibly lost his appeal if he even went to the hearing.

My LTCH got threatened just for OCing by the FWPD. Problem is without any witnesses, or hard physical evidence on your side, you're basically screwed. All an officer has to do is say you were being confrontational or threatening and it's your word against his. Guess who the ISP is going to believe in that one? It's not the law abiding citizen, that's my guess. It's what got put down in the police report. What we need is a citizen's report.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

He bought a gun, got a license to carry it and made sure Smith knew it.
Problem solved, right?
Wrong. Snider was working in his shop a few days later when a Fort Wayne Police officer called to ask whether he was armed, then ordered him outside – where Snider was greeted by several officers with guns drawn, “some pointing at my head.”

I agree, there is some important information missing. How Snider made sure Smith "knew it" seems to be the problem. There's not enough information in the article to be sure, but it's conceivable Mr. Snider wasn't very smart about it.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I think I know that guy.

Introspection is a wonderful thing.

 

[Markedup]

I think I know that guy.

T. D.

See my E-mail.

Mark

 

[cobber]

After looking through the article, it did not appear that the reporter established a good timeline for events, which might explain what happened. Maybe.

There was an incident with a tenant, and an allegation against Snider.

The police seized his gun b/c of a "propensity for violence". It sounds as if the police may have initiated an action pursuant to: IC 35-47-14-2
Warrant to search for firearm in possession of dangerous individual.

Snider then sued the police in federal court on the basis of undetailed (in the article) constitutional violations.

While that matter was pending, the ISP declined to renew his LTCH. (The reporter indicates the license was not renewed, and elsewhere that it was revoked. Which is not the same thing...)

Following the non-renewal, the federal case was settled out of court, leaving the State matter under IC 35-47-14 unresolved. Since there was a settlement, there was not a final judgment. Snider did not 'win' against the police, but only got some monetary damages; so whatever principles he wanted to vidicate, were not actually vindicated.

I am guessing that the reporter is "confused". There may have been two separate causes of action. One in State court against Snider, and one in federal court against the police. The settlement in federal court (probably?) did not resolve the State case (since it was not a judgment). With an IC 35-47-14 action pending the ISP would probably not renew an LTCH.

Has he tried to renew the LTCH since the federal settlement was entered?

The only explanation which makes sense to me, and I don't have nearly enough facts here, is that Snider assumed the settlement of the federal case would resolve any pending State matters. Which appears not to have been the case.

Maybe...

 

[cobber]

The reporter also referenced an earlier incident:

In the earlier case, Kimmel resident Jim Grimes lost his 9 mm pistol and carry license after firing his weapon to stop another driver from fleeing following a suspicious 2006 traffic accident. Those decisions were never reversed despite Grimes' subsequent acquittal on charges of illegally “pointing a firearm.”

That seems a wee bit different from bearing a firearm so that a schnook tenant knows you have it. (Although the police seemed to allege that there was a battery of some sort between Snider and Smith. Facts?)

 

[canav844]

In Indiana, it's a privilege to carry firearms not a right.

 

[David202]

That really is a terribly written article. I would like to know what really happened.

 

[CathyInBlue]

In Indiana, it's a privilege to carry firearms not a right.

No. It's a right. Art. 1, Sec. 32. They've trampled that right by making the carrying of a handgun a privilege requiring government permission.

 

[10-32]

In Indiana, it's a privilege to carry firearms not a right.

Something makes me think you failed US History in High School. Or work for EPD/FWPD....



UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

2nd Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



Indiana State Constitution
Section 32. Arms--Right to bear

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I think his point was that the American people have sat back and watched (and in some cases cheered) while laws that conflict with the second amendment have been created and enforced.

You can quote the US and Indiana constitution, but if it is not respected - it is no longer the law.

When you need a permission slip to do something, the government is not recognizing it as a right.

When your firearms and "permission slip" can be easily stripped by local law enforcement, infringement upon your right is in the hands of local authorities - and that is the true law of the land.

It is still an inalienable right - but infringement has become so common place that our government has begun treating it like a privilege.

 

[vitamink]

It says he goes to an apartment several times to evict a guy and gets in confrontations with him. He then makes sure the guy knows he has a gun.

He is already in the wrong and he should know that being a landlord. If your tenant decides to stop paying, you go to the court house, get an eviction, have a civil sheriff serve the eviction. You don't show up several times fighting the guy and telling him about your gun. Of course you'd rarely have to deal with this at all if you don't run a section 8 **** hole and allow criminals to rent from you.

This is yet another news article that is based solely on a lawsuit where you only get to hear one side. If what had happened to him was so egregious, he could have made off with a lot more money than $3,500...which is still about $2,000 less than most cities pay to avoid going to court (as denny stated before).

There is not enough info to know what the hell happened as we don't get to see the initial report, the call log the brought the cops there to begin, depositions or witness statements.

Here is the current case where the article came from. There's nothing in it really.
FindACase™ | Richard Lee Snider v. Fort Wayne Police Department

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

So - since he told his lawyer he was willing to settle if his firearm was returned, and his lawyer agreed to a settlement that did not include his firearm being returned - it does not matter if he agreed to the settlement or signed it?

It seems like his lawyer was half the problem. He did not want to settle without his firearm being returned, but without his signature or acknowledgement of the actual settlement - it was settled anyway??

Am I missing something? If not, that seems like a pretty shady courtroom deal...

Also, just because his LTCH was revoked does not mean he is not able to own firearms. It sure makes it sound like he went out and bought another firearm without issue - so why would losing his LTCH equate to local authorities not being able to return his firearm?

Before they infringe upon his rights, the claims they make against his character should be first upheld in court. Without a guilty conviction of a crime, why should they have the power to revoke an LTCH?

If he threatened someone with his firearm in an unlawful manner, he should be tried and convicted. Without being tried and convicted, no enforcement agency should be permitted to infringe upon his inalienable rights.

 

[Destro]

So - since he told his lawyer he was willing to settle if his firearm was returned, and his lawyer agreed to a settlement that did not include his firearm being returned - it does not matter if he agreed to the settlement or signed it?

It seems like his lawyer was half the problem. He did not want to settle without his firearm being returned, but without his signature or acknowledgement of the actual settlement - it was settled anyway??

Most likely his lawyer had POA...so like the judge said, it's neither here nor there. If he wants relief, he would need to take a civil action upon his lawyer. The case was dismissed with prejudice so it's 99.999999% unlikely he will ever get the firearm back.

 

[mschlatter]

You have absolutely NO PROOF of the statements made here. All you know is what is in the article, which is terribly written and vague. I don't see the ISP just revoking someone's permit with only what was said in this story. And, it's obvious that you have no idea how the ISP handles the revocation of it's Hoosier's LTCH's.

I have been interviewed by Kevin (the reporter with the News Sentinel) he is one of the fairest in Fort Wayne. This would not be a slanted piece. If you want slanted reporters read the JG.

 

[TheReaper]

I have been interviewed by Kevin (the reporter with the News Sentinel) he is one of the fairest in Fort Wayne. This would not be a slanted piece. If you want slanted reporters read the JG.

Then he left out a lot of important information, for whatever reason he deemed necessary.

 

[cobber]

So - since he told his lawyer he was willing to settle if his firearm was returned, and his lawyer agreed to a settlement that did not include his firearm being returned - it does not matter if he agreed to the settlement or signed it?

From the parties' communications in May 2011, it is clear that the parties agreed on what the terms of the settlement were-namely, $3,500, including attorney's fees, and Snider's reservation of his appellate rights concerning his gun permit. Bolinger, Snider's own counsel, sent a fax outlining these same terms, which Defendants then confirmed.

Offer+consideration+acceptance=contract

His agent (attorney) appears to have accepted on his behalf, and the court appears to have thought that the attorney had that authority.

Before they infringe upon his rights, the claims they make against his character should be first upheld in court. Without a guilty conviction of a crime, why should they have the power to revoke an LTCH?

If he threatened someone with his firearm in an unlawful manner, he should be tried and convicted. Without being tried and convicted, no enforcement agency should be permitted to infringe upon his inalienable rights.

I'm still thinking there was a court action where he was determined "dangerous". That would not necessarily prevent him from buying another gun, but it would allow the judge/police not to return the firearm that was seized. It's not a conviction. He could contest it in court.

It sounds like he and his attorney did not communicate well.

 

[2A_Tom]

Citizens report

My LTCH got threatened just for OCing by the FWPD. Problem is without any witnesses, or hard physical evidence on your side, you're basically screwed. All an officer has to do is say you were being confrontational or threatening and it's your word against his. Guess who the ISP is going to believe in that one? It's not the law abiding citizen, that's my guess. It's what got put down in the police report. What we need is a citizen's report.

When you are stopped start your voice recorder (mine e-mails the recording to me so I have a permenant record) then immediatly as soon as you can can sit down at a computer type out everything you remember as it happened. You can use the recording to refresh your memory. Then password protect the document, so you can not mistakenly corrupt it. When you save and protect the date and time that t was created will automatically be attached to the document.

Make a folder and keep that document and a copy of the voice recording in it. DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES TO YOUR ORIGINAL as this will change the time and date stamps. If yoy remember something that you feel is pertainent create a NEW document or documents and save and protect them as before.

IANALBIRL I believe that these documents could sway a judge, jury or a hearing board.

However I you actually are confrontational, beligerant, violent, radical, do resist or if by some strange coincidence your initials are TF disregard this method, as it may hold sway in the wrong direction.



Purple? We don't need no stinkin' purple.