State authorities asking gun owners to allow guns to be test fired.

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK it appears someone ran over Mrs. Johnson and left the scene.We believe strands of her red sweater may have dislodged and attached to the undercarriage of the motor vehicle.Will all the good people of this town drive your cars to the Police Station for a full inspection?
Can anyone explain the difference in a case like this and a murder?Like the old Chinese guy said in some old movie"No ticky,no laundry."
 
hypothetically if you had 59 of the guns located would you take a hard look at the guy who lost his? and would that be a violation of law or his rights?

As long as you called him a "person of interest" instead of a suspect it would be ok. LOL
 
OK, one last try...

Cassandrasdad, it is obvious from your handle what your priorities in life are, and as the father of a grown daughter I can respect that.

Hear me out, though.

This letter, and the comment on following up on those that don't come in voluntarily, just screams of "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?", and that line is the one that all tyrants use at the beginning of their careers when they need to get the populace into the habit of meek compliance.

The problem, though, is that once your rights get taken away you can't get them back short of a revolution, which ain't about to happen, IMHO.
 
so since the request is still voluntary this is all premptive whining? just in case?

Still voluntary. The whole point is that this thing is a hair's breadth away from being involuntary, and in fact most people probably read it in the desired way -- as being anything but voluntary. Besides, do you really think it is voluntary when the police say come down to the courthouse or "we're going to come looking for you"? That letter is plainly coercive, loaded with implication, and indicates a total disregard for the limitations placed on the policing powers of the state, as if they are just pesky impediments only standing in the way of real justice. Most disturbing is the mentality that letter betrays.

Preemptive whining? Personally, I'd much rather people get riled up over little exploratory bites like this, rather than lamenting the new precedent of presumptive guilt later on.

Now let me ask a serious question, are you a former or current police officer? Do you believe there is a limit to what the police should be allowed to do in their investigation of these murders, or any other? I'm just curious, because really I can't tell if you think we're simply setting the bar too high, or if you think there shouldn't be a bar period.
 
what is the complaint? they are being candid about their intentions. you can chose make plans and preparations. would you rather they tried to trick you? invite you all to a target shoot for 40's with a huge cash prize and snatch you when you show up? they are completely in the open about what they are doing and what their future intentions are. go don't go scared ? call lawyer now or whatever makes you feel safe. heck they might just watch to see who got a uhaul and started to move when they got the letter. cops are tricky sometimes. though they like the folks who let them check their guns "aren't as smart as most folks on gun boards"
 
"OK it appears someone ran over Mrs. Johnson and left the scene.We believe strands of her red sweater may have dislodged and attached to the undercarriage of the motor vehicle.Will all the good people of this town drive your cars to the Police Station for a full inspection?
Can anyone explain the difference in a case like this and a murder?Like the old Chinese guy said in some old movie"No ticky,no laundry."

not sure how they do it up north but down here if they get a hit and run fatality or serious injury if they can determine make and model they come around to take a peek at your car. is that a bad thing to you?
 
Archie - Post #47
I've got a nickel says this is a case of "We've got to DO something."

Unless this whole thing is a very clever plan to distract the suspects while the police move in, it strikes me this case is going nowhere. Unfortunately, when 'media' experts have no better news, they are happy to pick on law enforcement for not solving crimes. Elected officials get their underthings in a knot when the 'media' starts focusing on the 'dedication and efficiency' of both the law enforcement agencies and the elected officials who oversee those agencies. So the elected start the headless chicken dance demanding 'action' and the agency or agencies in question '... do something...'

The officers investigating this rather heinous crime - if I may editorialize a bit - probably know this voluntary firearms testing is a waste of time, but it's '...doing something...' This placates the elected officials and the 'media' for a while and hopefully the officers involved can actually do some investigation.


I believe this is the same motivation for most of the useless gun control laws enacted in recent years. Elected officials feel great pressure to "Do something! Do something!" about "Rising gang violence" or whatever, and so another pointless restriction on responsible, legal gun owners rights is born.

Armed Liberal
 
So what would happen if there was a witness that said the killer left in a 1986 green Ford pickup? (1986 because it should be fairly rare by now - as is a .40 Glock)

If the police went to the OTC (Oklahoma Tax Commission) and asked for all of the addresses of all the green 1986 Ford pickups in the area. So what if you owned one? What if they came to your house and wanted to talk to you?

I think the above scenario is pretty common and yet we don't get so defensive about those things. I think one of the worse parts of this is the threatening tone of the letter and reports as well as the sequence. Once they identified the list of people who had bought .40 Glocks, why didn't they just go talk to those people; do some basic gumshoe detective work? Then, once they had done the work, start getting the warrants for the guns? This whole situation could have been handled better.

Of course, once a story like the one about these girls got on TV, I knew it was going to go bad. The surest way, it seems, to get a police department to screw up an investigation is to let them get view of a television camera.
 
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837


It's far easier to defend liberty when you recognize potential threats to it early. This situation may not have become a infringement of liberty yet, but it's a good idea to let the officials responsible know that we're on point and watching them very closely.
 
I just re-read the OSBI letter that was posted and noticed something interesting. Some here have said that the letter was ok because the checks were voluntary. They very clearly were not voluntary. The letter says that if you cannot get to the Sherrif's office on the two days to call the OSBI to make other arrangements to have your gun tested. There was nothing voluntary about that statement. It sure seems to me like a case of prove your innocence or at least of searching every .40 Glock owner without a warrant.

Maybe they see it like a drivers license or insurance or DWI checkpoint. Only this is a .40 Glock checkpoint with the checkpoint being done by mail instead of with police cars on a busy road.
 
"It's far easier to defend liberty when you recognize potential threats to it early. This situation may not have become a infringement of liberty yet, but it's a good idea to let the officials responsible know that we're on point and watching them very closely.
__________________
THAT makes absolute sense and it doesn't make gun owners look bad, and like it or not we are as subset of a larger society and would do well to get along with it where possible
 
what is the complaint? they are being candid about their intentions.

Yeah, it's great to get an official letter that says, in essence, we think you might be a criminal and we want you to come in and prove that you aren't.

aside from the impossibility of proving a negative.
 
I think what upsets most people is the idea that a state with no gun registration knows where all the Glock .40's are.
 
3Pairs12, you have just illustrated precisely why such cases as this must NOT be used to change or even influence public policy or law. There is a reason we have a written Constitution and it is that a written document stands above the messy and often excruciating events of human life, keeping the principles upon which a free and just society is founded safe from manipulation by evil.

In saying what you did, you have announced to the world the exact lever needed to move you in whatever way someone wants. Whatever you have that they want: money, your wife, your vote, the exercise of whatever authority you possess in a certain way - all they have to do is capture and threaten a child and you will give them what they want.

If it were my child, that's probably what I'd want you to do, but that doesn't make it right, because to live that way is to GRANT EVIL A VETO OVER THE GOOD. There is good in our system of liberties and self-government, even as strained as it is in the current political environment. No other means of ordering society has EVER been invented that comes close to it as a way of preserving the worth and dignity and freedom of its citizens.

As painful as it is in the moment, that IS worth more than the life of any single person, even a little child; it is why we honor soldiers who risk and sometimes give their lives to defend it.

And in this case, giving in to the demand for the surrender of rights for which people bled and died would solve nothing for those children - it will not bring them back.
The exact lever for sure. And, one of many that will be used time and time again. It is our duty not to be fooled.

It is also to point out that police investigations and prosecuting attorneys are not as structured to finding the truth as most people would like to believe. They are motivated to get convictions. Anyone who has spent much time around the process will tell you that. I have seen several cases where once a certain amount of evidence gets them started they will try to make it fit even if other evidence does not. There is a tremendous history in this country of evidence that was hidden and/or undisclosed that could prove innocent coming to light years later. Officers and prosecuting attorneys have careers and public pressure just like everyone else and thier motivations are not always benevolent.

With that being said, this becomes scary if one of these poor saps submits to a test fire and bullet looks "close enough" to bullets used. This could easily start a cascade of events that would be yet a second tragedy. Then what you get is an innocent man in prison or sentenced to death while an officer and prosecuting attorney get promotions as a totally duped public thinks giving up more rights is a good idea.
 
With that being said, this becomes scary if one of these poor saps submits to a test fire and bullet looks "close enough" to bullets used. This could easily start a cascade of events that would be yet a second tragedy. Then what you get is an innocent man in prison or sentenced to death while an officer and prosecuting attorney get promotions as a totally duped public thinks giving up more rights is a good idea.



t could indeed happen that way or they could get the right guy and send him for a dirt nap. what kinda odds you wanna give on your "it could happen that way"
 
cassandrasdaddy Says:
what kinda odds you wanna give
I don't want to give odds. I prefer following laws, observing our rights and maintaining a sane due process. This is far superior to gambling on the likelyhood of good judgment during an emotional, knee jerk community reaction to give up any and all rights for the sake of "protecting the children".
 
"what kinda odds you wanna give" that once this happens -voluntary compliance, it will happen again and again and again.

This is a violation of both the 4th and 5th amendments, once it crosses the line from voluntary to we'll come looking for you. I would not allow it until they had a warrant. That is what the constitution calls for. or what is left of what we refer to as the contitution.
 
The "odds"? Ignoring the absurdity of a legal system based on odds and not written law . . .

I give it a 50/50.

This charade will either work (only if the murderer is stupid enough to tell on himself/herself by bringing his gun in for test-firing), or this charade will "work", and out of frustration and blurred judgement an innocent man/woman with a registered firearm will take the fall for a criminal who (likely) doesn't have a registered firearm (if the murder weapon was even his/hers at all).

I too, surrender to 'the brick wall.'

At least until I see an update where an innocent .40 owner gets killed in yet another no-knock warrant.
 
what is the complaint? they are being candid about their intentions.

The complaint is that OSBI and possibly BATFE may have broken the law to get the information on these gun owners in the first place and no one is asking about that.
 
I think what upsets most people is the idea that a state with no gun registration knows where all the Glock .40's are.
They don't know where all of them are. This is just the ones they do know about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top