The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Hazcat on April 17, 2008, 07:49:40 AM
-
In Crestview, the police chief isn't allowed carry a gun for the time being because he got into a fuss with his estranged wife, the Northwest Florida Daily News reports.
He says she says he threatened her over the phone on Tuesday. The Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office got involved, told the police chief -- in writing -- he'd have to stop carrying a gun.
comments at link http://blogs.tampabay.com/bizarre/2008/04/the-police-chie.html
-
Recently, there was a case where this happend to a officer and the cheif did some BS and made it so the guy could still carry his firarms... guess what he ended up killing his wife with his duty weapon...
-
Not really information that they should have made public..... I am sure that there are a lot of criminals down there that would like to take a shot at him.
-
Not really information that they should have made public..... I am sure that there a lot of criminals down there that would like to take a shot at him.
Wait so a police cheif being charged with a crime should not be made public?
-
Not really information that they should have made public..... I am sure that there are a lot of criminals down there that would like to take a shot at him.
Police Cheif is a political job, Now he knows how the "common folks" feel when thier rights are infringed. Maybe this will get him to rethink inefective gun laws.
-
Wait so a police cheif being charged with a crime should not be made public?
I don't belive he was charged with a crime. She must have gotten a PFA on him. You can get a PFA on anybody at anytime on just your word.
-
I don't belive he was charged with a crime. She must have gotten a PFA on him. You can get a PFA on anybody at anytime on just your word.
One would think it would be hard to get one on a police cheif.
-
One would think it would be hard to get one on a police cheif.
I guess not, they said it was a phone call.
-
Wait so a police cheif being charged with a crime should not be made public?
He was not charged with a crime. My point was that the fact that he would be running around unarmed should not be made public. There are many large crime rings out there that would love to knock off their local police chief to help make their lives easier.
-
He was not charged with a crime. My point was that the fact that he would be running around unarmed should not be made public. There are many large crime rings out there that would love to knock off their local police chief to help make their lives easier.
Are you kidding ! Look how much attention is drawn when a Cop gets killed. No "Large crime ring" is going to want that kind of heat, no matter how much they may say differantly. Criminal conspiracies, wheter for buglary, car theft, drug dealing etc. are essentialy BUSINESS propasitions, All be it, illegal business. Haveing every Local, State, and Federal LEO in the entire country wanting you dead is bad for business, not real good for your health either. It wasn't that long ago (last summer ?) when the FLORIDA Sheriff was asked why his officers shot a Cop killer 68 times, his answer was " Thats all the bullets they had" . If this Sheriff gets shot it will probably be his "estranged wife" who does it. But it will sure make him think twice the next time some genius wants support for an anti gun inititive !
-
The bigger problem, the one that is not really being addressed here, is the denial of rights without due process. As I seem to recall, there is there is something in that pesky US Constitution that keeps getting in the way of the "social engineers" that prohibits illegal search and seizure.
Anyone want to argue that a court ordering the seizure of firearms just because someone files a claim is legal - especially in such circumstances as a contentious divorce where such a claim can be easily and readily used to abuse the other party? This type of seizure, just like the seizures in drug cases - before any conviction or even an arrest in some cases - is not legal even though the law says it is.
-
My understanding that in a domestic abuse case only a judge can take firearms away and to that, you have to be charged. Could be wrong or there is something else to this story that we don't know.
My point of view coming from a LE family, it is usually a bad idea to take a gun away from a cop and then let it be known. While killing a cop or shooting at one is a bad idea for an extended llife span (I was in Lakeland, FL last Sept. when the deputy and his dog were killed and another police officer was wounded), for the most part bad guys don't care about killing cops. In fact, some wear it as a badge.
-
I don't know about other states, but in CA if a order of protection is issued( which is issued by a judge.) you have a short period of time to surrender all your firearmes to a LE agency.( I forget if its 24 or 48 hours, but its not very long)
-
Pathfinder is right, some of us got onto the politics aspect and missed the legal implication, In fact this Sheriff has been denied a civil right for the terrible offense of not being able to get along with his wife. Who among us is innocent of that ? Every one says poorly considered things when they are angry or annoyed, and if they did not anger or annoy one another they would not be estranged. Domestic violence is the ONLY misdemeanor offense for which you can be denied a civil right ( fire arms ownership)That is under the FEDERAL Lautenberg bill, I would site article and such but I cleaned the apartment, and put my copy of the constitution somewhere I wouldn't lose it and haven't seen the damn thing since :( But Ron, No there isn't necessarily anything we are not being told, thats the way it is in the nanny state. As to publishing the fact it shows that the Sheriff is not above the law, also, He is not likely to be doing foot patrols in dark alleys as a Sheriffs duties are primarily political supervisory and administrative, He has Deputies for the grunt work ;D