Suing the BATFE

[bwframe]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/profire-arms-supply-llc/376937-machinegun-theft.html

Please Help Us Fight the ATF by Andrew Hall - GoFundMe

 

[17 squirrel]

As I said, my point of view. How they got stolen is a mute point anyway. The fact that he is claiming a 2A right violation in his court case is what my post should have included only. I understand it is not the ATF's property, but if the case is still "active" then the "evidence" isn't going to be released. If and when they take the thief to court, the evidence will be used I would guess. It would be no different from 1 gun being used in a shooting. You wouldn't get your firearm back until the case had been resolved either in a court case or cleared by the authorities.

Mute point ??
Does a silent point make a point ? Or
Does a unspoken point make a point ?

 

[Woobie]

Mute point ??
Does a silent point make a point ? Or
Does a unspoken point make a point ?

Or does being mute mean that it's dumb?

 

[Frost49]

Sorry that was my phone spell check and fat fingers. MOOT point.. Forgive my transgression.

 

[17 squirrel]

Or does being mute mean that it's dumb?

Let me go take a swim in my mote and think about it for a bit.

 

[Libertarian01]

Let me go take a swim in my mote and think about it for a bit.

Just think... If we throw a mute in your mote the issue is moot as you'll never hear the beginning of it!

 

[Woobie]

Sorry that was my phone spell check and fat fingers. MOOT point.. Forgive my transgression.

There are some words my phone refuses to recognize. And usually I don't catch what it's done until after I click submit.

 

[Roadie]

THREADS Merged

 

[silverspoon]

I'm no lawyer and I didn't stay at the Holiday Inn Express last nite but isn't it pretty standard for the "prosecution" to hang onto the evidence until after all the court stuff is over?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

isn't it pretty standard for the "prosecution" to hang onto the evidence until after all the court stuff is over?

Yes.

 

[CountryBoy19]

I'm no lawyer and I didn't stay at the Holiday Inn Express last nite but isn't it pretty standard for the "prosecution" to hang onto the evidence until after all the court stuff is over?

If my understanding is correct, they haven't pursued any charges against the thief/thieves. If they needed the stuff for court stuff wouldn't the be pursuing some charges? I think his contention is the fact that they aren't charging the guy, yet they're still holding all his stuff.

Yes.

How long can they hold stuff for that purpose without pursuing charges? Indefinite? If so, that seems to be a loop-hole in being secure in your possessions; if they can hold it as evidence of a crime yet not charge the criminal then what is stopping them from seizing all of our guns as evidence in a crime (RAS or not) and holding it forever without charges?

Seems to me they should either get on with it, or give his stuff back.

 

[Libertarian01]

I am not a lawyer, but it would seem reasonable to me that the prosecution could hold on to all relevant evidence until all possible appeals were exhausted. That way, if an appeal were launched a year down the road the prosecution wouldn't be caught with their pants down unable to admit evidence. Because if they didn't have it the defense could attack previous findings based upon evidence that it could not now reexamine. That is just a guess.

In most cases I would think that for a business insurance would cover the lost property. Down the road the business may have to reimburse the insurance company if/when the property is finally returned, but that would be another issue.

Regards,

Doug

 

[g00n24]

I am not a lawyer, but it would seem reasonable to me that the prosecution could hold on to all relevant evidence until all possible appeals were exhausted. That way, if an appeal were launched a year down the road the prosecution wouldn't be caught with their pants down unable to admit evidence. Because if they didn't have it the defense could attack previous findings based upon evidence that it could not now reexamine. That is just a guess.

In most cases I would think that for a business insurance would cover the lost property. Down the road the business may have to reimburse the insurance company if/when the property is finally returned, but that would be another issue.

Regards,

Doug

Would they need to hold onto the physical evidence in this case? Wouldn't sufficient documentation that these weapons existed be enough? Like documented serial numbers and photos of the guns. I don't quite understand why they would need to hold onto the actual weapons for appeals since everyone knows the weapons existed, were stolen, and recovered. I could be asking really stupid questions too...IDK.

 

[Dolton916]

My Father was in a home invasion shooting, he was the shooter, and the prosecutor kept the weapon until the trial. Upon conviction it was returned. About 15 months time.

 

[TRWXXA]

My Father was in a home invasion shooting, he was the shooter, and the prosecutor kept the weapon until the trial. Upon conviction it was returned. About 15 months time.

Let me see if I got your story straight... So your catholic priest broke into a home and shot someone, he was convicted, recieved a 15 month sentence, yet still got his firearm back?

 

[SteveM4A1]

Let me see if I got your story straight... So your catholic priest broke into a home and shot someone, he was convicted, recieved a 15 month sentence, yet still got his firearm back?

Purple?

 

[TRWXXA]

Purple?

If I must.

I'm sure the story made sense in Dolton's head when he typed it, but it sure is an awful read.

When you capitalize "Father" after a possesive pronoun, it refers to a priest or God. Since "Father" was the only subject of the sentence, I had to assume that he was not only the shooter, but also the home invader and the convicted party.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Glad he got his gun back, though. Unless he was convicted, then... WTF!?

 

[SteveM4A1]

If I must.

I'm sure the story made sense in Dolton's head when he typed it, but it sure is an awful read.

When you capitalize "Father" after a possesive pronoun, it refers to a priest or God. Since "Father" was the only subject of the sentence, I had to assume that he was not only the shooter, but also the home invader and the convicted party.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Glad he got his gun back, though. Unless he was convicted, then... WTF!?

Thanks for the lesson.

I believe it is easy to see that it was a typo. It wasn't a difficult read, as I understood it quite easily. What was so difficult about understanding what he meant to say? Snide remarks don't get you anywhere, except make you look cool on the netz.

 

[TRWXXA]

Thanks for the lesson.

I believe it is easy to see that it was a typo. It wasn't a difficult read, as I understood it quite easily. What was so difficult about understanding what he meant to say? Snide remarks don't get you anywhere, except make you look cool on the netz.

Sarcasm is the greatest teaching tool, EVER!

 

[medcoxo]

ProFire has my support !!!