Police act swiftly after (LEGAL) gun purchases

[Texas_Bryan]

I was looking for the smiley face on your post but didn't find one.  I really find it hard to believe this is you.  Quick, contact Marshal, tell him someone stole Tom's identity! 

Seriously, since when does the government have the constitutional authority to take preemptive action in this situation given the facts presented?

As TAB, says we probably don't have the entire story.  That being said we do have the facts provided in the story.  The key for me from the article is this:

After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said.

Police seized the recently purchased firearms, as well as another .45-caliber Heckler & Koch handgun and a 12-gauge shotgun. Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed.

THEY SEIZED ALL HIS GUNS!  THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHARGES!  WTF!!!!!

NEXT THEY MAY COME FOR YOU!!!!

If no criminal charges have been filed then clearly this action is unwarranted and I hope he can sue the LE office that arranged this nonsense.  If he did threaten his former work place they would have threw the book at him.

[mudman]

I was looking for the smiley face on your post but didn't find one.  I really find it hard to believe this is you.  Quick, contact Marshal, tell him someone stole Tom's identity! 

Seriously, since when does the government have the constitutional authority to take preemptive action in this situation given the facts presented?

As TAB, says we probably don't have the entire story.  That being said we do have the facts provided in the story.  The key for me from the article is this:

After a phone conversation with negotiators, the man — who was alone in the home — agreed to come out, Hansen said.

Police seized the recently purchased firearms, as well as another .45-caliber Heckler & Koch handgun and a 12-gauge shotgun. Police are holding the weapons for safekeeping, but no criminal charges have been filed.

THEY SEIZED ALL HIS GUNS!  THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHARGES!  WTF!!!!!








NEXT THEY will COME FOR YOU!!!!

[Solus]

Ok...say there was no threat or expressed intent to do violence, but it was noted that he was very disgruntled.

The police are watching him and he purchases several weapons and ammunition.  Still no laws broken.

So, being reasonable, the police decide to continue surveillance of the fellow.

The next day he loads the car with his new weapons and ammo and heads off towards his former place of employment.  Still no laws broken.

The police, being suspicious have officers on hand a the employer's place waiting.

The guy arrives, takes a few deep breaths and gets out of the car, grabs the weapons and fills his pockets with ammo and heads towards the front door.  It is likely there are still no laws being broken.

He won't be breaking any laws unless someone tells him to get off the property.

At some point before he draws down on someone, it might be wise to stop him.

At what point are the police not going to violate his rights by detaining him?

[Hazcat]

Many questions in all of your 'maybes'.

Does he have a CCW?  Is it legal to carry in his workplace?  Has he been told not to return to the property?

Assuming the answers are 'yes, yes, and no' then it is still not reasonable to stop him.

Living in a free country can be dangerous...but it sure beats the alternative.

[Solus]

Yes...lots of maybies....

But this question applies to a much broader scope than this individual case.

The questing I posed is   At what point is law enforcement justified in taking action.

The question also applies if he had purchased a base ball bat and was heading to the front door with it in hand.


In this case, I see where a protection order would have value since the police are watching the guy.  If he sets foot on the property a law is broken and they can take action.

[Sponsor]

[Hazcat]

Yes...lots of maybies....

But this question applies to a much broader scope than this individual case.

The questing I posed is   At what point is law enforcement justified in taking action.

The question also applies if he had purchased a base ball bat and was heading to the front door with it in hand.


In this case, I see where a protection order would have value since the police are watching the guy.  If he sets foot on the property a law is broken and they can take action.

Answered yer own question. 

[WatchManUSA]

Ok...say there was no threat or expressed intent to do violence, but it was noted that he was very disgruntled.

The police are watching him and he purchases several weapons and ammunition.  Still no laws broken.

So, being reasonable, the police decide to continue surveillance of the fellow.

The next day he loads the car with his new weapons and ammo and heads off towards his former place of employment.  Still no laws broken.

The police, being suspicious have officers on hand a the employer's place waiting.

The guy arrives, takes a few deep breaths and gets out of the car, grabs the weapons and fills his pockets with ammo and heads towards the front door.  It is likely there are still no laws being broken.

He won't be breaking any laws unless someone tells him to get off the property.

At some point before he draws down on someone, it might be wise to stop him.

At what point are the police not going to violate his rights by detaining him?

Isn't this the point of having rights in the first place?  We have our rights as protection from the government - unless I do something wrong - get out of my way.

That being said, the police have any number of laws they can use to stop a person or vehicle.  Seat belt laws, vehicle maintenance laws (burnt out lights), littering, spitting on the sidewalk (in some places) and list goes on.  If they want to stop someone and check them out they can do it quite simply without violating his rights.

[Solus]

Answered yer own question. 

Yes =)..

The answer is less important than having thought through the question with as many of the consequences in mind as possible.

[tombogan03884]

I'm not disagreeing with you Haz, the thing is, based on the article we don't know that he DIDN'T leave screaming "I'll get you all !!!"
As to the sales, if the cops are watching you they can track your bank account and credit card transactions. If this comes to trial I would bet money it will mention that he paid either by card or check.
Like I posted before, based on the info there is no "right" answer, would you rather know you let people be murdered , or look like a fascist a hole ?  

[TAB]

if you buy more then on ehand gun in a 10 day period, there is a form that the ffl must send out and fax to the ATF.