Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: And we thought California was bad....

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791

    And we thought California was bad....

    Her cache somehow caught the attention of Lakewood Police, who paid a visit last September. When they found Rice wasn’t home, they asked an obliging employee of the complex to open up the apartment without her consent. Once inside, they raided the gun rack, making off with 13 firearms worth around $15,000. The only problem: They had no apparent reason to.
    When Rice kindly asked to have her toys returned, the cops acknowledged that the weapons were legally owned. But they refused to return them without a court order. And so Rice has filed suit in Lakewood Municipal Court.
    She claims to have legally acquired the firearms during and following her military service. The collection of arms is valued at $15,000 and includes some hardcore weapons of death, including:
    - SKS M-21 Sniper Rifle
    - Ruger Blackhawk .357
    - Sentinel Arms 12 Gauge
    - Gemtech .22 LR
    - Ruger Mark II .22 LR
    - Antique double barrel percussion shotgun
    - Springfield Arms .45 ACP
    - Thompson M1928 .45 ACP Semi-automatic
    - Mossberg 500A 12 Gauge Shotgun
    - Valkyrie Arms M3 .45 ACP Semi-automatic
    - Smith & Wesson M-686 .357
    - Makarov 9mm
    - Colt Model M1851 .44 Revolver
    Rice’s complaint indicates she is not under any disability and has not been convicted of any offense that would preclude her from gun ownership.
    The complaint also says police have not filed any charges related to the weapons, and have refused to return them to Rice without a court order.
    http://www.lovelakewood.com/blog/201...eized-weapons/

    Is this one of the first 'shots' in the "Federal Families" new regulations, since they can't legislate gun bans? Is this a defacto act under the new DHS homegrown terrorist action???


    And what if they want her to produce sales receipts for the guns? How many of you have guns you have no receipts for? Family guns, private sales??? What do you do then?


    Time to take a hard look at how we store our weapons, and maybe relook at house vs. apartment living... Just sayin...
    http://oldnfo.blogspot.com/2011/08/c...se-we-can.html

    more details can be found:

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...tion&p=1604516
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran EXTREMEOPS1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Escondido CA
    Posts
    248

    Thats why Gun Safes were produced....

    What a travesty of justice sue the police but purchase a large gunsafe and keep the "arsenal" locked away from prying eyes obviously someone with access to the condo has "reported" the gun stash and hence the illegal theft of weapons. Move from the condo sue the employee for allowing access and not forgetting the landlord. Buy a large gun safe for your next accomodations, hope all goes well
    "There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

    - General George S. Patton, Jr.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Several things kept puzzling me about this deal and I still don't know what is behind the whole thing.

    First is the title of the article "Disabled Vet asks city to return seized weapons" and it later makes not of her being a disabled Vet. Yet in her complaint she says that "she is not under any disability". So which is it and is it just that the doctors claim that she is disabled and she claims not. Whichever way it is the author of the blog seems to be trying to play both sides of the fence here.

    I kept trying to find why the police even went to her place to start with. I think I finally found it in the call log on page 31-32. It appears that they went for a personal welfare check although it does not say who called them for the check. As for them removing the guns and not returning them that is a different story and a different debate.

    http://www.lovelakewood.com/pdf/crime/100918.pdf

    It does appear that a judge has ordered the return of the guns but I don't kmow if they did or not.

    http://www.lovelakewood.com/pdf/law/110817_guns.pdf

  4. #4
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    "personal welfare check" my big toe...
    That's like saying "We stopped the car because the taillight was out".

    Pretty much the same thing happened to me, though they only took one of my guns.
    (The one that was in a gym bag, in a locked case, not the one that was lying in plain sight on my bedside table.)
    Took 4 months, 2 hearings, & hiring a lawyer to get the pistol back.
    Now I have a safe.

    Seems too many people (including those w/ badges) equate having a gun w/ being a danger to self or others.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 09-05-2011 at 09:08 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    Several things kept puzzling me about this deal and I still don't know what is behind the whole thing.

    First is the title of the article "Disabled Vet asks city to return seized weapons" and it later makes not of her being a disabled Vet. Yet in her complaint she says that "she is not under any disability". So which is it and is it just that the doctors claim that she is disabled and she claims not. Whichever way it is the author of the blog seems to be trying to play both sides of the fence here.

    I kept trying to find why the police even went to her place to start with. I think I finally found it in the call log on page 31-32. It appears that they went for a personal welfare check although it does not say who called them for the check. As for them removing the guns and not returning them that is a different story and a different debate.

    http://www.lovelakewood.com/pdf/crime/100918.pdf

    It does appear that a judge has ordered the return of the guns but I don't kmow if they did or not.

    http://www.lovelakewood.com/pdf/law/110817_guns.pdf
    The way it is written is: "The plaintiff is not under any disability and has not been convicted of an offense that would not prevent her from lawfully owning and possessing the subject firearms"

    That is pretty much the EXACT same thing that you sign when you go to purchase a gun through a store and get the NCIC check done.

    I believe her lawyer included this to prevent the case from being drawn out longer by people stating she had this mental disease or that they "just wanted to verify everything one last time." As the police so often like to do.

    Just because someone is disabled DOES NOT mean that they have a disability that would prevent them from firearms ownership. That is all that was being stated in that sentence that you are trying to dissect.

    The judge ordered the return of the firearms OR a bond of $30,000 until the lawsuit gets concluded. That doesn't mean anyone was right or wrong, just means that at THIS point in time the judge sees no legal reason for the gun owner to NOT have her firearms. That however does not mean that the police wont moan and groan and dig and dig and try and find some little obscure thing to make sure they get those "Evil weapons off the streets."

    In regards to the call that was placed it looks as though (to my uneducated yet experienced with the medical community mind) this was just some neighbor who was freaked out about someone having guns and did whatever they could to get them out of the neighborhood.

    The reasons I say this is because:
    1) if the VA had ACTUALLY labelled her a danger to herself or others, the MINUTE someone (even if it was a janitor) thought that there would be someone CONSTANTLY watching that person. At that point there is no "I need to use the bathroom." Instead it becomes "ok Mrs. Anderson will go with you and watch you."
    2) There would be NO chance of her signing Against Medical Advice due to the health and welfare statutes.
    3) If she had been deemed to be a threat to herself or others the judge would not be ordering the guns returned pending the outcome of the trial.
    4) Having been through the VA system on both the inside and the outside I can tell you that when a patent comes in for a psych appointment they are not left alone, they are watched CONSTANTLY, as I noted above.
    5) If she came in as a walk in to either the ER or her doctor there would have been a corresponding complaint to go along with it. Most people end up on psych holds because an exgf or wife or brother or mother calls the cops and reports that they feel the person is unsafe. In 10 years of working in Emergency Rooms I have never once seen a patient who turned themselves in for psychiatric reasons unless they were homeless and just looking for a bed and a free meal (almost all have admitted this to staff)
    6) Lastly as noted above IF there was a psychiatric reason why she was not allowed to have those guns then the judge would not have ordered them back. Additionally IF there was the "doctors order attesting..." it would have been included in the police report, such report GUARANTEED to be part of the PD's rebuttal of the lawsuit.

    That is what I see not adding up here.
    Last edited by devildoc5; 09-05-2011 at 10:57 AM.
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    @Devildoc5 - I agree with your assessment of this but I just found it a little misleading to make the headlines all about a disabled vet and then proclaim no disability even though the lawyer was talking about the ability to own a gun and there is no mention in the article of what her disability may be. To me this is just some FUD being thrown in for good measure.

    As for the call we can assume all kinds of things but like you point out it sure seems strange that if she was such a concern for the doctors, why was she out, how did she get out, and why just a personal welfare check instead of returning her to the hospital. If she was such a danger to herself and others then what was she doing walking the streets.

    As for the police having to post the bond or return the guns I doubt that it would be much trouble for the police to post the bond (I would think they already have the bond in place so they just add this to the list) so there is no telling when or if she will get her guns back. Probably in the end they will be like most of the ones from Katrina, either missing or ruined from neglect.

  7. #7
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    I'm a disabled vet, 50% service connected. You'd never know it by looking, talking with, or knowing me unless I were to tell you but there is alsom nothing about my disabled status that "disables me" from owning firearms. In fact, when leaving active duty, if you have a good transition course, vets are instructed to file a disability claim on every documented injury in their medical record. Any stitch, broken bone, scar, change in vision or hearing, every sprain and strain, EVERYTHING so that it is evaluated by the VA and "service connection" determined. That way, if that injury becomes an issue down the road or it aggravates some other condition, it's treatment is covered 100% as a service connected disability. I filed on 26 injuries from an 18 year career, recieved a "0% service connected" rating on most of them but if any of them become a problem, I'm covered.

    There are MANY vets with disability ratings that have nothing to do with mental problems, or detectable infirmities. In fact, you can get a disability rating for something as simple as a broken bone, even a finger, that ocurred on active duty, healed, and is no longer a problem. "Disabled veteran", without further information, is no more descriptive than saying "a 35 year old male". You know they're a vet and that's about it without more info.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, California, USA
    Posts
    289
    "The plaintiff is not under any disability and has not been convicted of an offense that would not prevent her from lawfully owning and possessing the subject firearms"

    Meaning, whatever disability she does have, does not prevent her from safely owning or operating a firearm. It also covers mental disorders or having been adjudicated to a mental facility.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Provo, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,076
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    @Devildoc5 - I agree with your assessment of this but I just found it a little misleading to make the headlines all about a disabled vet and then proclaim no disability even though the lawyer was talking about the ability to own a gun and there is no mention in the article of what her disability may be. To me this is just some FUD being thrown in for good measure.
    You are confusing context. [context 1]She is a disabled vet, meaning that she is a veteran who sustained some kind of injury that limits her physical and/or mental abilities in regard to employment. [context 2] She has no disability, meaning that there is no legal basis that makes it illegal under federal and/or state law to possess firearms. This reference to "disability" is the federal terminology for someone who is a convicted felon, has a protective order or has be adjudicated as mentally incompetent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •