|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 6, 2008, 10:30 PM | #1 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 15, 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,558
|
ACLU Lawsuit Against BATF Proceeds in Florida
http://www.srpressgazette.com/news/a...atf_judge.html
Quote:
A PDF copy of the Order on Summary Judgment can be viewed here: http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/Kilpatrick-SJ.pdf ACLU Press Release may be found here: http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/in...ilAlertID=3672 Even though the ACLU completely ignores the Second Amendment, they are a powerful voice when it comes to the First Amendment. I'm uncomfortable supporting them, but in this case, it looks like they're clearly on the side of freedom of speech. It is very interesting to listen to the 911 tape. The ATF agent (caller) has absolutely no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to put a BOLO on the van. He says he thinks it is an officer safety issue. He also says that FBI agents had already seen the van. When the dispatcher asks if the FBI stopped the van, the caller (ATF agent) asks if they're being recorded - then changes the subject. After the van is located, the police and ATF switch to cell phone communication. I haven't read over the .pdf yet. What do you think, is there a chance to put a big ol' smackdown on the ATF for illegal suppression of free speech in this case?
__________________
-Dave Miller ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Personal Protection. Tick-off Obama - Join the NRA Today - Save $10 |
|
October 6, 2008, 10:57 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 8, 2004
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 2,457
|
The ATF should have just let this case go and taken their punishment instead of clogging the court with baseless motions, but it is to be expected that they will make a motion to lay the blame at the feet of the agent instead of at the agency as a whole. No reasonable person would have construed those statements as posing a clear and present danger, even with the refinement of Schenck v. United States by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which stated that speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law reasonably can be summoned. This incited no one to do anything illegal except for the ATF agent that conducted the illegal detainment and search. However, I doubt that the agent will say that this was agency policy instead of his own poor judgment. Even if he did, the agency would probably not have these actions codified in agency procedures, so it would be difficult to prove for the agent. Hopefully this will have a farther reach against the agency as a whole instead of solely the agent in question. I hope the agent in question sells out the BATF after they sell him out, that's the only way I see this leading to sweeping reform of the BATF.
__________________
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” - Samuel Adams |
October 7, 2008, 12:20 AM | #3 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Um, Question! (raises hand)
In the Order On Summary Judgment, page 3, footnote 2, it says in part, "Roegner called the ATF office and was informed that Plaintiff had a concealed weapons permit." How does the ATF office know who in Florida possess a Florida concealed weapons permit? Does Florida link this database with the Feds? At least, qualified immunity appears to be off the table! |
October 7, 2008, 04:41 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,716
|
Quote:
Maybe a person or two will get a reprimand after the outcome of everything, but by and large the agency won't be truly hurt. Additionally, this would not appear to be a policy issue, but one of limited behavior by individuals. So it would be hard for the ATF to learn much from this incident if the incident was the result of rogue behavior of one or a few individuals. I am not sure I understand why they are only arguing the First Amendment issue. From the sounds of things, there is a 4th amendment issue as well.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
October 7, 2008, 09:46 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: Job hunting on the road...
Posts: 3,827
|
The real problem here, and one which is endemic through the system, is that the ATF has the unlimited resources at hand to fight this, rather than to settle. How many millions of dollars is it costing the taxpayer, because the bureaucracy has entrenched itself into a "we are always right" mode?
How can an ordinary citizen, or even a seven-figure millionaire, fight against an entity with literally bottomless coffers? The agency literally has limitless power, and companies like Cav Arms have to just sit there, be polite, and take it. "Uh... Sir, we're really not sure what you're looking for, but you are free to ruin our business if it makes you happy." THAT is something to write your representatives about - the abuses of the bureaucracy. The "gun thing" isn't sexy, but in this day and age, squandering taxpayer dollars is... (damn... looks like they'll let ANYONE in here... I sincerely hope that we can keep this reincarnated forum looking at the big picture, and not get derailed into splitting hairs...)
__________________
Job hunting, but helping a friend out at www.vikingmachineusa.com - and learning the finer aspects of becoming a precision machinist. And making the world's greatest bottle openers! |
October 7, 2008, 10:06 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,190
|
Quote:
|
|
October 7, 2008, 10:09 AM | #7 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
On Topic: We, as gunnies, would do well to understand the methodology of the ACLU, as regards 1A issue. They win, because they have developed a consistant track record. |
|
October 7, 2008, 12:03 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: Job hunting on the road...
Posts: 3,827
|
One of our problems is that we get hung up on exact definitions.
"Assault rifle" "Magazine" "Clip" Sigh When what we SHOULD be doing is looking at the overall message that is being conveyed... A gunny sees a TV commentator talking about how a group of ROTC students are "shooting assault rifles" at an organized rifle match, and writes them a three page diatribe chewing them out about the exact definition of "assault rifle" instead of thanking them for showing the nice young people and their responsible handling of firearms. And then the gunny is surprised when they do a negative story the next time. Because that's what they think people want. Reporters aren't special people - they react, and you can manipulate HOW they react. How does the ACLU maintain a good relationship with the press? They are NICE to them... So the press is nice to them back, even when they decide that something unpopular gets their attention...
__________________
Job hunting, but helping a friend out at www.vikingmachineusa.com - and learning the finer aspects of becoming a precision machinist. And making the world's greatest bottle openers! Last edited by Bogie; October 7, 2008 at 02:28 PM. |
October 7, 2008, 05:30 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,716
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
October 8, 2008, 10:27 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Playing the Devil's Advocate...
There's a comment at this link worth reading: http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/20...comment-208188 (It's from Kit, a female LEO in a western state). Summary money quote for those who won't follow the link: Quote:
Food for thought. pax |
|
October 8, 2008, 03:05 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
That's interesting, Kathy - thanks for the link.
I would like to agree, but not thread hijack, on the topic of assault 'something' definitions. As a psychologist, I've studied the weapons priming effect - whether a weapon has a negative connotation. I can tell you that long arms that look like military weapons generate that negative attribution in the general public that is not knowledgeable about guns and in some sectors of the gun community who do know about them and specifically think they are too dangerous for the general public. There are studies on such. Mocking a source and making the distinction that an AR-15 that is semiauto is not an assault weapon has no traction for arguing access to such guns. That horse has left the barn. There are other better arguments. The proponents of weapons bans will go for a total ban on military derivative semiauto weapons based on their analyses of the AWB's last instantiation and minimal effects on their goals. If you want to preserve these weapons in private hands, talking about assault weapons or not assault weapons is an incestous debate that will get you nowhere outside the family. If you say to a reporter it isn't fully auto just hicap semi, followed by a demo on how fast you can fire it - that isn't good PR. But I've seen that done. Cho at VT did lots of damage with semiauto pistols. Other arguments are needed.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
October 8, 2008, 09:25 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2000
Location: Job hunting on the road...
Posts: 3,827
|
What happens if you try to sell the guy doing the stop a few stickers?
(at the moment, my van/trailer are sorta "target rich environments")
__________________
Job hunting, but helping a friend out at www.vikingmachineusa.com - and learning the finer aspects of becoming a precision machinist. And making the world's greatest bottle openers! |
October 9, 2008, 12:16 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 8, 2004
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 2,457
|
Quote:
I believe the ATF made up the explanation because they had no good reason to switch to unmonitored cell phone comms after finding out they were being recorded. Maybe a win here could provide case law resulting in all internal law enforcement communications having to be monitored and recorded on an official net? That would be a win for the people. Right now the switch to the cell phones looks like a conspiracy more than anything else.
__________________
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” - Samuel Adams |
|
November 15, 2008, 06:44 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,847
|
The ACLU bringing an action against ATF, isn't that a change.
Re the admonition concerning the age of the original post, my response is quite brief. |
Tags |
aclu , atf , batf , first amendment , florida , free speech , kilpatrick , lawsuit |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|