Colorado Woman Can’t Get Her Gun Back


But at least in CO they don't have to worry about warrantless searches of their vehicles like our state just passed longslide.

Each state has its usurpations. Good people from most states are fighting hard to get rid of oppressive and unconstitutional laws. To nitpick and point fingers doesn't help.

Wasn't nitpicking or pointing fingers. It was a general statement, one that we all need to be heeding. I didn't hear about the warrantless searches BS passed in PA. Just because they write some law on the books doesn't mean it gets complied with. This is what I mean by stepping it up a notch. Time to get more aggressive with authority figures and legislators that make unconstitutional laws/statutes/codes etc. We are at war in this country on a number of fronts. Border security, govt and state tyranny and the threat from raghead terrorism. We have gone on long enough without any retaliation and they keep on destroying our liberties. I don't know what it will take for people to wise up and do the necessary evil. I know govt wants a reason to initiate martial law and are trying their damnedest to provoke it---maybe it's time to oblige.
 

As a note... I just looked it up, and the sheriff involved is one of the ones suing to get rid of the laws. I'll bet this is some politician or lawyer's idea.

Link Removed

He's third on the list.

Yeah, he could risk his job and getting arrested, but what if he was replaced by someone who didn't want to get rid of the idiotic, and practically un-enforceable, laws? Tough call, and not sure what I'd do in his shoes.


That... and it suddenly occurred to me that having a backup gun is a very good idea, if you can afford it. I'd guess that it would likely be confiscated if you were involved in a self-defense scenario anyway, regardless of whether you were right or not (it's evidence now, after all). And if you had to shoot someone, it's not all that far-fetched to think that maybe he's/she's got a friend somewhere that wants revenge...
 
Sara Gets Her Gun ... about next week or so

Update on the story and more background information: Sara Gets Her Gun | National Review Online

Interesting how directly related this is to the recent http://www.usacarry.com/forums/concealed-carry-discussion/44474-emergency-room.html thread.

From the article:

The pistol, a Ruger SR9, has been held by authorities since March 28, on which day Warren was involved in a serious automobile accident. “It was pretty bad,” she tells me over the phone from her home in Fort Collins, Colo. “I was slammed against my driver’s side door. I had blunt-force trauma to my kidneys, and I was bleeding internally. When the ambulance came, they grabbed me right away and rushed me to the hospital.” At the time of the collision, Warren had her pistol on the adjacent passenger seat, but afterward moved it into her purse so as not “to alarm anybody.”

At the hospital, the gun was taken by the police for “safekeeping overnight.” “Looking back, they shouldn’t really have done that,” Warren says. “They should have just given it to my husband.” But they didn’t. Instead, authorities took the weapon to the local police station and put it in storage. After Warren was discharged, the gun was kept for a further two weeks. “They wanted to see if I had been under the influence of drugs or alcohol,” Warren says. “And they said they should keep the gun just in case,” while they awaited the results of a blood test.

In and of itself, this delay did not greatly concern her. But she was beginning to worry nonetheless. While the blood test was pending, Warren had made initial inquiries as to how the pistol would be returned, and in doing so “found out about the background checks,” which she now describes as “this ridiculous law.” “At that point,” she recalls, “I knew I wasn’t going to get my gun back. Nothing seemed to be working.”
 
Wasn't nitpicking or pointing fingers. It was a general statement, one that we all need to be heeding. I didn't hear about the warrantless searches BS passed in PA. Just because they write some law on the books doesn't mean it gets complied with. This is what I mean by stepping it up a notch. Time to get more aggressive with authority figures and legislators that make unconstitutional laws/statutes/codes etc. We are at war in this country on a number of fronts. Border security, govt and state tyranny and the threat from raghead terrorism. We have gone on long enough without any retaliation and they keep on destroying our liberties. I don't know what it will take for people to wise up and do the necessary evil. I know govt wants a reason to initiate martial law and are trying their damnedest to provoke it---maybe it's time to oblige.

Then this might be of interest to you for the hard work ahead of us in PA:

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-5-2013oajc - 1017924602181959.pdf?cb=1
 
I certainly hope they did not etch into the firearm any case number or ID like they do in a crime. That would have me boiling over.

Wolf_fire, do you mind explaining what you mean? Do you know where they typically do this etching?

I am new to the world of handguns. I just bought my first, a Smith & Wesson 64-3. It's a great gun, the shots land exactly where I line it up. One of things that has puzzled me about it is that it has a series of numbers etched into the butt of the gun right after the serial number. It looks as if it was done by hand (numbers are not uniform).

Thanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
This is long but worth the read.....


Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.


Sent from behind Enemy Lines.
 
Wolf_fire, do you mind explaining what you mean? Do you know where they typically do this etching?

I am new to the world of handguns. I just bought my first, a Smith & Wesson 64-3. It's a great gun, the shots land exactly where I line it up. One of things that has puzzled me about it is that it has a series of numbers etched into the butt of the gun right after the serial number. It looks as if it was done by hand (numbers are not uniform).

Thanks.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

When a firearm is confiscated by police, whether it was used in a crime, stolen, etc., there is a case number assigned. Police used to place a tag on the trigger guard and write the case number on it. However, tags ripped off, "went missing", etc.

So police engrave the case number on the firearms now, usually on the frame. I'm sure there are still some departments that use the tags though.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,526
Messages
610,759
Members
74,962
Latest member
troydistro
Back
Top