You can have your gun, but not your ammo

[RockofStrength]

NOPE!

Law Enforcement Officer - one who enforces the laws of the state. Have you so quickly forgotten that SCOTUS has even determined that our LEO's have no duty to protect? (i.e. - prevent violence) Now, I am a very strong supporter of our LEO's, and am in no way trying to bash this deputy. I believe that he did what he thought was right. However his thinking was flawed.

I'm not sure why RockofStrenght's post didn't garner a little more support, because I believe he said it best: (BTW, reps inbound once I reload)


I honestly can't believe some of the comments that are being made about this situation. The basic consensus of many in this thread is that the officer had the right to take the OP's liberties for the sake of "safety". But where does that road lead? Confiscation of firearms in a national emergency like Hurricane Katrina? Hopefully you can see my logic here. Yes it's just ammo. But where do we draw the line folks? If we forfeit our freedoms a little at a time, eventually we will have none.

I will summarize my belief in this situation with a well known quote by Benjamin Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

The reps are, as always, much appreciated . However, I have since altered my opinion to reflect the 4th Amendment's own clear wording. As the officer had a solid, reasonable purpose to continue to temporarily hold the ammunition he was not unreasonably seizing property.

INAL or a judge, but unless he broke some manner of lesser state law it is my opinion that the officer made the best possible decision in this case save that no receipt was given in order to guarantee the return of that property.

Yes, the unscrupulous and gun-hating in our society will attempt to use that logic in order to prevent anyone from being able to have and use firearms, among other freedoms, but unfortunately no human law has yet been written that cannot be twisted from its proper and useful meaning into a way to subjugate and control others.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Refusing medical treatment when you KNOW you have a head injury of some sort IS bad judgment. That's a fact.

Actually, an opinion. Some people are able to assess the likelihood of injury to themselves quite well. For all we know the OP has had 14 head injuries in his life and this was the 9th worst. If everyone who hit their head on something and had a "head injury of some sort" came to the ER for an evaluation, we'd never have time to see the poor guys with lice and sunburn.

The officer should have given the OP the bullets but kept the gun if we follow the logic. The way it happened makes no sense for safety. What if he had another loaded mag?

 

[KG1]

Actually, an opinion. Some people are able to assess the likelihood of injury to themselves quite well. For all we know the OP has had 14 head injuries in his life and this was the 9th worst. If everyone who hit their head on something and had a "head injury of some sort" came to the ER for an evaluation, we'd never have time to see the poor guys with lice and sunburn.

The officer should have given the OP the bullets but kept the gun if we follow the logic. The way it happened makes no sense for safety. What if he had another loaded mag?

The OP did in fact have another loaded mag and I belive he stated that as soon as the cop left he retrieved it and loaded it in the firearm again

 

[hoosierdoc]

The OP did in fact have another loaded mag and I belive he stated that as soon as the cop left he retrieved it and loaded it in the firearm again

Hah, perfect. I missed a few pages I guess. If you don't want someone shooting fireworks, you don't take away the lighter, you take away the fireworks

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Actually, an opinion. Some people are able to assess the likelihood of injury to themselves quite well. For all we know the OP has had 14 head injuries in his life and this was the 9th worst. If everyone who hit their head on something and had a "head injury of some sort" came to the ER for an evaluation, we'd never have time to see the poor guys with lice and sunburn.

The officer should have given the OP the bullets but kept the gun if we follow the logic. The way it happened makes no sense for safety. What if he had another loaded mag?

Point conceded

 

[tv1217]

What ifs work both ways.

A couple people have said "What if the LEO had not taken the ammo and the OP went and shot someone or committed suicide"

How about "What if the OP did not have the spare magazine and he later got killed by a mugger because he could not defend himself"

 

[tobi]

Well I suppose someone with a concussion might be a little more likely to overlook one of the rules. If he can see that you've hit your head and it turns out you did have a concussion, and he can't possible determine whether you've actually scrambled your brains or not, it seems like he erred on the side of caution. By your own admission you can't remember part of the encounter likely due to your concussion. Probably not a good state to be loading a firearm.

I'm not seeing how this isn't a reasonable judgment call.

I agree. Without being there it is hard to give an opinion but I think this could be a reasonable judgement call. I do believe a receipt should have given to you for the ammo.

 

[hoosierdoc]

What ifs work both ways.

A couple people have said "What if the LEO had not taken the ammo and the OP went and shot someone or committed suicide"

How about "What if the OP did not have the spare magazine and he later got killed by a mugger because he could not defend himself"

We're not really saying what SHOULD have happened, or COULD have happened, we're trying to interpret the LEO's logic.

The LEO stated he took the bullets for the safety of the OP since he had a head injury. This did not serve his intended purpose of not letting the OP accidentally injure himself or others as he was easily able to make the gun dangerous to himself again simply with another magazine. (in the mind of the LEO)

The discussion of putting the guy at risk from external injury from being unarmed speaks to a different issue I think than I'm commenting on. I'm not sure he should have even confiscated anything (esp since separate thread states you can legally carry and be drinking alcohol), but if you're trying to remove a threat to a person, remove the threat, don't remove an easily replaced portion of it. When my 10-month old begins to climb stairs, I don't put him back in front of the first one, I move him away.

I guess it's like seeing someone under the influence while driving at a gas station. As a concerned person, you drain their gas tank and walk away thinking you did a good deed while the guy is filling his tank again from the pump. You didn't do what you thought you were doing.

 

[dice dealer]

http://youtu.be/rzU2iJ9qfXg

 

[JBob77]

If "If's" and "But's" were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas. Be thankful that you didn't have to go through all the red tape to get a firearm back. Smart enough to realize that the officer meant no disrespect to you or your rights. Insightful enough to not be so hasty to reload if this ever happens again. And feel lucky that a more serious situation did not occur, like serious injury or death.

 

[Beau]

^^^ THIS is exactly what I have been saying all along. The OP wasn't arrested, or charged with anything. The LEO wasn't qualified to make the call that the OP wasn't able to properly carry a loaded firearm.

The issue is not whether the OP was exercising good judgement or not. That is a moot point. The issue is whether the LEO had the right to confiscate his ammo. Where does the LEO get the right to arbitrarily conf fiscate property? Should he have confiscated his pocket knife too? How about his cell phone, since he could have made some seriously crazy phone calls in his altered mental state? It's for his own safety. We wouldn't want him racking up hundreds of dollars in 1-900 number charges.

Here is another question...Under what circumstances is it ever ok for anyone (especially LEO) to violate your rights?

Why stop at the ammo or the gun? The officer should have went to his home to get any other guns he might posses. Better take any knives or other sharp objects too. Don't forget all vehicle keys and power tools.

 

[Hooker]

I see the merit in staying true to "the letter of the law," but also in using
common sense. Intelligent, rational people have got to be able to act in a
way that takes into account each specific circumstance for the benefit of
all involved.

Overbearing JBTs are one thing, but I believe this officer was acting in a
way that was responsible and smart. What would be the story if he would
have returned the OPs gun and he shot himself or someone else as the
concussion took on full effect? Would there be an outcry that the officer
had returned the gun knowing you were probably not 100% in mind and in judgement?

This wasn't a case of abuse or a cop just being a bully. He was trying to
do the right thing. No one died and your things were returned. There are a
million what-ifs that could be entertained, but what's the point?

This sounds like a case where a speeder screams about getting a ticket
because "cops should be out catching real criminals!" Well, it works both ways. You
should save your formal complaint for an officer that deserves it and leave this guy alone.
We should all be lucky enough to run into an LEO like this when one is needed.

Nothing personal here toward the OP, just my

 

[medicr224]

If the officer was attempting to protect the person then that would be commendable BUT as it has already been stated with in minutes of receiving a empty weapon it was reloaded again so what did he do besides make a illegal seizure.

Yes officers have to make judgement calls everyday and on every call they answer that they are not a expert in every feild that they must make these calls on but they do the best they can. Most are not trained much more then basic first aid but they do learn things with years of experince. I think what he did was propper with unloading the weapon but very wrong keeping the ammo. It is not the cost of the ammo but it was a illegal seizure esp it was with out just cause.

Officers are taught to make any weapon they come in contact with "safe". So I can understand making the weapon safe.

If the ambulance crew felt there was a problem with the mental state there is a process that they can use to be able to get the person to the hospital. Once they had done that then the officer would have just cause to take control of the weapon and ammo for the safety of everyone and of the weapon after he had written and delivered a hand receipt to the owner of the weapon. But this was not done so the EMS crew must of not felt there was any risk to the person.

BUT the bottom line is if you felt you were violated you should contact his supieror officer and talk with them about the incident.

 

[ckcollins2003]

I see the merit in staying true to "the letter of the law," but also in using
common sense. Intelligent, rational people have got to be able to act in a
way that takes into account each specific circumstance for the benefit of
all involved.

Overbearing JBTs are one thing, but I believe this officer was acting in a
way that was responsible and smart. What would be the story if he would
have returned the OPs gun and he shot himself or someone else as the
concussion took on full effect? Would there be an outcry that the officer
had returned the gun knowing you were probably not 100% in mind and in judgement?

This wasn't a case of abuse or a cop just being a bully. He was trying to
do the right thing. No one died and your things were returned. There are a
million what-ifs that could be entertained, but what's the point?

This sounds like a case where a speeder screams about getting a ticket
because "cops should be out catching real criminals!" Well, it works both ways. You
should save your formal complaint for an officer that deserves it and leave this guy alone.
We should all be lucky enough to run into an LEO like this when one is needed.

Nothing personal here toward the OP, just my

The officer may have made a good judgement call but handled it the wrong way. If the officer believes the person is unfit to handle live rounds then what's the point in giving a firearm back to that person? Obviously anyone can walk into a wal-mart and buy more ammo (or do what the OP did and just put the extra mag in instead), thus completely eliminating the reason for confiscating the ammo in the first place.

Why not give him the bullets and take the gun? Can you actually do LESS damage by pistol whipping someone rather than throwing a bullet at them? Maybe someone can do a ballistics test on that and find out.

I also find it hard to believe that any legal gun owner would be okay with an officer illegally confiscating their weapon and/or ammo at any time.

Sure, things COULD happen afterwards. That person COULD end up shooting himself or someone else. They COULD ALSO get shot themselves in a defensive situation because the officer confiscated the ammo to their firearm. So if we're going to bring up what COULD have happened if he or she did this or that, then lets bring up both sides, because a lot of crap can happen but it usually doesn't.

Just my

 

[JoshuaW]

Does your boss have a LTCH? If not, he sure isnt going to ask her to commit a crime on your behalf.

This pretty much all boils down to the officer covering his ass, if he gives a handgun back to a guy who had just fallen asleep at the wheel, caused a major accident, with a really strong chance of a major head injury and said driver later does something he doesnt even remember, the officer will get sued, the PD will get sued.

Those folks who are sue happy are the ones who cause this type of stuff. I have no issues with what he did under the circumastances. Go pick up your ammo and move on with your life.

That is a very valid point that I completely missed. I guess even if she did, it still really wouldnt be proper for the officer to give her my firearm, unless he received my permission.

After reading this thread, I myself have been partially swayed. I still do not fully agree, but I understand and respect the officers actions even more so now.

The officer should have given the OP the bullets but kept the gun if we follow the logic. The way it happened makes no sense for safety. What if he had another loaded mag?

I did actually have another mag, and I did reload shortly thereafter. The officer's best intentions were just that, intentions. They didnt really amount to any real action, if he had wanted to make sure I wasnt carrying a loaded firearm around the rest of the day, he should have taken the entire gun, because that is exactly what I did. As I stated, even in my altered mental state, I dont think I would have allowed him to so easily. Whether that is right or wrong is what we are debating.

 

[tv1217]

If "If's" and "But's" were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

Not if you're a diabetic with a peanut allergy

 

[cowgirl.sdm]

I feel the officer was just trying to protect you. Apparently if the wreck was bad enough you felt it was a miracle to walk away then you didn't need another miracle to stop you from poor judgement. What I am saying is the officer apparently could tell you were in not the best state of mind to make a judgement call. They should have given you a receipt but I feel the officer was in the right here. I am sorry about your accident and glad you are ok.

 

[rmabrey]

even in my altered mental state

You just justified his actions IMO

 

[Kick]

You just justified his actions IMO

=

NOT

TO

 

[Roadie]

=

NOT

TO

"and the winner of the year's best use of emoticons on INGO Award goes to..."