Washington Post makes their case for seizing weapons upon service of a protective order
Chief Tango sends us a link to the Washington Post which struggles to make their case for allowing police to seize firearms when they serve someone with a protective order. They use Thursday’s mass shooting in Kansas, where three people were killed and 14 other were wounded when a gun man went on a spree in Newton ninety minutes after Harvey County Sheriff’s deputies served him with a protective order from a neighboring county. The shooter was a felon;
Investigators were initially unsure how Ford obtained the weapons, given his criminal record in Kansas as well as Florida; as a convicted felon, he could not possess guns.
On Friday, federal authorities filed a criminal charge against Sarah T. Hopkins, 28, of Newton, Kan., alleging that she transferred the guns to Ford last year despite knowing he was a convicted felon.
She bought the Glock semi-automatic handgun and the Zastava Serbia, AK-47-type semi-automatic rifle that Ford had when he was killed, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said in an affidavit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.
I’m thinking that a sheriff’s deputy wouldn’t even think there was a firearm because the subject was a felon. I doubt that a felon would admit to a deputy that he had a firearm. Why wouldn’t a felon lie, anyway, he had illegally taken possession of a firearm and he intended to murder a bunch of people, so he was already in violation of several laws, so why not lie to a police officer, too, while he’s at it.
The shootings ended Thursday when a lone police officer entered the lawnmower parts factory where the shooter was plying his skills and killed the bad guy. The shooter was in violation of a number of gun control laws designed to keep him from arming himself, not the least of which was the murder of three innocent people. One more gun law wouldn’t have prevented the shooting.
While seizing weapons upon the service of a protective order in domestic abuse circumstances makes sense, this is the wrong case to use as an example.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Wait! are you saying that regardless of the local gun laws a “felon” possessed a couple of firearms??
Depending on jurisdiction in NY when an “order of protection” was issued, the judge at his discretion….especially when a family dispute involved a husband and wife and firearms were revealed to be in the home (emphasis on handguns) – the weapon(s) could be “secured” by the police agency in order to comply with the “order.”
I’m not sure it still happens today since my information is from a “few” years ago.
“…[A]s a convicted felon, he could not possess guns.” Sure he could. In point of fact, he did. What the reporter omitted was the word “legally” to modify possessed. Mere error? An oversight? Bridge. Brooklyn. Cheap.
Straw purchase, of course.
“The weapons were a Zastava Serbia, an AK-47-type semi-automatic rifle and a Glock Model 22 40 caliber handgun.
The woman is the mother of Ford’s 4-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son, the Wichita Eagle reported Friday.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/27/officials-woman-charged-with-providing-firearms-to-suspect.html?intcmp=hpbt4
I hope the fat cow does the full ten years.
^^^ Exactly.
Jeeze…Sparks. I thought she was kinda cute, in an ugly sort of way. 😉
I ND’ed all over the ‘report’ button…again. That thing should have a safety.
Make an example out of her
Red is dead!!!
HEY, WAITAMINNIT! Aren’t there already laws in place forbidding a convicted felon from owning or possessing firearms and ammo? How about existing laws against committing murder as well? *DUUUUUUHHHHH!* Facts, logic, and common sense are a complete and total anathema to liberals!
He was served the order at his workplace. If gun grabbing were allowed, would they have then followed him home, obtained separate warrants and searched his house, car, workplace, girlfriend’s home, etc?
WAPO FU. Bad example…
In a word, yes. It already happens in New Jersey. The order allows search and seizure for all locations where the defendants guns may be.
Is the woman who got him the guns the one who sought the PPO? If so, why didn’t she inform the court that he had guns, and was a felon in possession of guns? Or, had he told her that she couldndunuffin cuz she had gots him the gunz, knowing he was a felon?
Cache
We have all heard of people being asked by a doctor treating them if they had any weapons in their home. Same for inquiring V A medical facilities. You SHOULD know and keep this in mind if you are ever selling a home. Just as two people came to appraise our home, they both went separate ways. Picture taking was an important part of each room to them. Please keep this in mind when being appraised…..weapons are BEST kept in locked closets, hidden under beds completely out of site, or in the trunk of your vehicle when your home is being appraised. Since ’08 appraisers have become more picture-of-everything oriented. Who knows where those pictures end up? Before you ask, the answer is YES!
I disagree, they shouldn’t be allowed to seize anything just because you have some piece of paper saying so.
If the rationale is your’re so dangerous and there is evidence of an imminent threat so much that you can’t have a gun, why are you allowed to even be out on the streets?
Also the due process and the ability to get your guns back is lacking from the majority of these confiscations.