just more 'reasonable restrictions' on the 4th.... the 1st is next
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
I hope we see 100s of law suits for rights violations such as this one.
Poor dog is looks pissed they took his owner and then tied his leash to the fence. This looks bad
You put them in a SWAT uniform, and all of a sudden they become storm stoopers........kind of scary in my opinion.
Makes you wonder if some of the cops knew the house, and decided this was a chance to use the situation as an excuse to search the house without a warrant.
Given that fellow in Wellesley who lost his LTC a few years back for refusing to answer police questions, I can certainly see a person losing their LTC for refusing to let police in their home in a situation like this.
I hope we see 100s of law suits for rights violations such as this one.
Lot of guys in one house. Was that a frat house? Or a A bombing search "party"??
Maybe some a$$hole neighbor called in a "see something, say something" on the neighbors he doesn't like.
Would love to hear the official report, and the truth.
What if just prior to this the cops got a 911 call saying they saw someone fitting the description of the terrorist entering that house. Wouldn't that pretty much throw the 4A argument out the window? Not saying that is what happened, but there is no way of knowing why they went full retard on that house, then packed up their crap and left the neighborhood entirely.
The Godfrey case pre-dated Heller/McDonald, as was based on the premise that since there is no right to own a firearm, denial of that right does not constitute punishment and is therefore not subject to the standards of due process required when imposing punishment (Moyer v. Sherborne).
A similar case that denies or revokes an LTC for exercise of a constitutional right would be a setup for a federal case as it puts the subject in the position of having to choose between two constitutional rights on a "you get only one right, but not both" basis. I heard a rumor there is a group in MA that is very interested in pursuing this sort of case
That's what a warrant is for.
Pretty sure that a judge would have granted one in 5 minutes under the hypothetical circumstances you describe above.
Let's not make up scenarios in which this is a legit search - if they had a warrant, you'd see them showing it to the homeowner on the video. What we see is the SWAT threatening him instead - of course there was no warrant.
That dog should buy a lottery ticket.
I can't find a link to that case, but I am sure it is similar as you mention.
I would hate to be the guy who has to wait years and years for this case to make it to the FEDERAL supreme court, since our state version seems to still cling to the notion that there is no individual RKBA.
This video really bothers me in many ways. Like dhuze said.
I can't find a link to that case, but I am sure it is similar as you mention.
I would hate to be the guy who has to wait years and years for this case to make it to the FEDERAL supreme court, since our state version seems to still cling to the notion that there is no individual RKBA.
You put them in a SWAT uniform, and all of a sudden they become storm stoopers........kind of scary in my opinion.
Makes you wonder if some of the cops knew the house, and decided this was a chance to use the situation as an excuse to search the house without a warrant.
It should bother everyone in here. It should actually make you angry.
I'd be willing to bet money those homeowners called the police themselves.
I've read that case. It's the Sherborn one that I couldnt find a link to.
As far as the Godfrey case, my favorite line is this:
Notwithstanding the serious danger that existed, especially to children, Godfrey invoked his constitutional rights and refused to cooperate with the police. The chief stated that while he respected Godfrey's constitutional entitlements, he also had to recognize the "serious danger which continues to exist." It is on that basis that the chief determined that Godfrey was "no longer a suitable person to be licensed to carry a firearm."