Suing the BATFE

[Irishshooter]

I can not believe what I'm reading. It shocks me that in this online community there are people who feel it is completely reasonable for a government agency to hold someones firearms with no just cause. Just because they feel they were not secure does not give them the authority to hold there property with out having a legal standing for doing so.
From everything I have seen regarding this case, Andrew has not received any information as to why they are retaining his property.
If the BATF feels he violated the law then they should say that and answer to it in court. But instead they are making the rules up on there own.

 

[BugI02]

Good Lord! Can we move on now and perhaps debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? You are splitting hairs so thin many of you could be honorary lawyers

 

[Fargo]

Admittedly, these very well may not be the exact names of the applicable statutes here in Indiana. I got my JD with honors at the University of Marland Law School. But I am quite sure that Indiana has similiar criminal statutes and I know that they support charges as I have described. Also in regards to the comment regarding police officers being the authority on charging documents, the officer submits a criminal information and affidavit of supporting facts. At that time he also recommends a list of charges, the ASA or ADA reviews the recommended charges, affidavit and criminal information report for legal sufficiency to support the charges and either agrees, denies or increases charges. Then either an arrest warrent is issued or it is submitted to a grand jury proceeding where an indictment will be handed down or not.

oh, and with full disclosure the above and a few other posts were not written by me ( the squirrel ) they were written by the cute chic that goes for a swim in my bathtub a few nights a week.

Let me get this right, you are a lawyer but you dropped by the local police dept. to bolster your authority on what charging decisions get made???

Your grasp on Indiana CrimPro is lacking to say the least.

Indiana cops, and IMPD in particular, are known for being quite vocal about the fact that DPA's (because Indiana doesn't have ASA's or ADA's) apparently don't feel bound by what the cops remanded a guy for.

 

[Fargo]

I can not believe what I'm reading. It shocks me that in this online community there are people who feel it is completely reasonable for a government agency to hold someones firearms with no just cause. Just because they feel they were not secure does not give them the authority to hold there property with out having a legal standing for doing so.
From everything I have seen regarding this case, Andrew has not received any information as to why they are retaining his property.
If the BATF feels he violated the law then they should say that and answer to it in court. But instead they are making the rules up on there own.

Who here has said that they think that the BATFE is in the right? I just am unwilling to donate because I fear they will store the money the same way they stored their machineguns.

I don't like funding methheads, much less arming them.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Who here has said that they think that the BATFE is in the right? I just am unwilling to donate because I fear they will store the money the same way they stored their machineguns.

I don't like funding methheads, much less arming them.

lol

 

[17 squirrel]

*

 

[17 squirrel]

Let me get this right, you are a lawyer but you dropped by the local police dept. to bolster your authority on what charging decisions get made???.

Keep up Spanky, that was me not her.
She is sleeping now but I am sure she will get back to you.

 

[IndyGunworks]

Didn't read much of the thread, but I will say, I had an FFL out of my house in marion county for three years.... The ATF could have cared less weather a did or did not own a safe, and they never even asked about it.

 

[KG1]

Didn't read much of the thread, but I will say, I had an FFL out of my house in marion county for three years.... The ATF could have cared less weather a did or did not own a safe, and they never even asked about it.

This appears to be the opposite of the experience of the other poster that said the ATF examiner would not approve his application unless he had a safe. Again I think it appears to be up to the subjectivity of the individual ATF examiner on what is required in any given circumstance and not an agency wide requirement set in writing. More ATF ambiguity. Go figure.

 

[AllenM]

My experience is the same as IndyGunworks

 

[davedolli]

Didn't read much of the thread, but I will say, I had an FFL out of my house in marion county for three years.... The ATF could have cared less weather a did or did not own a safe, and they never even asked about it.

Same here, they never gave me a second look.

Dave

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'll go on record. If you have an FFL, and bunch of your product is stolen due to shoddy storage. I have no issue, heck, I EXPECT the ATF to require you have more stringent security measures in place before they turn over recovered firearms to you. And that belief isn't confined to firearms. If you run a pharmacy, and you get hit for most of your controlled substances because you don't have locks on your doors (which are subsequently recovered). I have no issue with the drugs not being returned to the pharmacy until the staff decides to lock the door.

 

[17 squirrel]

I'll go on record. If you have an FFL, and bunch of your product is stolen due to shoddy storage. I have no issue, heck, I EXPECT the ATF to require you have more stringent security measures in place before they turn over recovered firearms to you. And that belief isn't confined to firearms. If you run a pharmacy, and you get hit for most of your controlled substances because you don't have locks on your doors (which are subsequently recovered). I have no issue with the drugs not being returned to the pharmacy until the staff decides to lock the door.

That is the most ignorant posts I have read here in awhile. There already are federal laws on what is required to store firearms and narcotics.
You might want to googlefoo and see how many law enforcement officers / angencies lose, leave behind, have stolen from the backseat / trunk of their cruiser or home. Along with guns missing from departments secure gun storage or property room , and all the above includes handguns, shotguns, rifles and sub / machine guns.

 

[Fargo]

That is the most ignorant posts I have read here in awhile. There already are federal laws on what is required to store firearms and narcotics.
You might want to googlefoo and see how many law enforcement officers / angencies lose, leave behind, have stolen from the backseat / trunk of their cruiser or home. Along with guns missing from departments secure gun storage or property room , and all the above includes handguns, shotguns, rifles and sub / machine guns.

So you call Kut "ignorant" while at the same time you struggle to write in complete sentences?????

Is this really the guy who graduated with honors from "Marland" school of law or is this someone else again?

 

[Kutnupe14]

That is the most ignorant posts I have read here in awhile. There already are federal laws on what is required to store firearms and narcotics.
You might want to googlefoo and see how many law enforcement officers / angencies lose, leave behind, have stolen from the backseat / trunk of their cruiser or home. Along with guns missing from departments secure gun storage or property room , and all the above includes handguns, shotguns, rifles and sub / machine guns.

Sue me, it's my opinion. The second amendment states "well regulated," in regards to training right? Well one was **** poor trained if their weapons fall into the hands of bad guys. So until they've been "trained" right, and get the point, I see no infringement.

 

[17 squirrel]

So you call Kut "ignorant" while at the same time you struggle to write in complete sentences?????

Is this really the guy who graduated with honors from "Marland" school of law or is this someone else again?

Ahh the grammor Nazi....so you nothing worthwhile to add .. But my crappy grammre.. Lolololol..

And geepers you must have missed RIF / reading comprehension when you were in school.. SHE has the Law Degree.... NOT me... This is the second or third time I have told you that. I'm just a lowly welder..
Good try but its Merlin...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[churchmouse]

OK guys. This will be an in thread warning to keep it real.
Seriously.

 

[sig1473]

IBTL

 

[Robjps]

Sue me, it's my opinion. The second amendment states "well regulated," in regards to training right? Well one was **** poor trained if their weapons fall into the hands of bad guys. So until they've been "trained" right, and get the point, I see no infringement.

Do you really want to go into LEO weapons lost and or stolen? The agency in question does not exactly have a sterling reputation.