GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-20-2013, 21:13   #1
bkkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 747
Violation of rights

Ok here is the situation. My cousins wife got into trouble and cannot have guns or ammo.

My cousin owns guns, the parole officer told him no guns in the house.

Cousin brings all of his guns and ammo for me to store for him.

If the cousin had a gun vault and the wife did not have access to them, what's the problem? It seems that this is a violation of the cousins second amendment rights. He did nothing wrong yet he is being denied access and ownership of guns and ammo in his home. Has this ever been challenged in the court system? It seems to be a cut and dried case...
bkkd is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 21:30   #2
Ohio Copper
Senior Member
 
Ohio Copper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: The Rust Belt.
Posts: 4,272
In what way did she get in trouble? It has to either be a weapons offense or an offense of violence.

She is on probation, a term of that probation is 'no weapons in the house'. She agreed to that. If she does not agree to the terms of probation she is free to either go to county jail or prison for her offense.

We'd need more info at least; what state is this in?

If you truly feel it is a violation of their rights, why have they not contacted an attorney?
__________________
Quote:
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do.

Benjamin Franklin
Quote:
Just being a federally "prohibited person" who owns guns and signatures about them on the internet should be enough to keep him paranoid."
Ohio Copper is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 21:31   #3
NavyMSU
Senior Member
 
NavyMSU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 770
Yup, cut and dried.

He can always divorce her.

I'm kidding.. But in all honesty, she is not allowed to have firearms in her home. He makes the sacrifice to stay with her.

Cut and dried, no guns.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
NavyMSU is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 21:38   #4
bkkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 747
I can't give anymore details, for the privacy but it just seems wrong and an attempt. At back door gun control for the whole family.
bkkd is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 21:39   #5
bkkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 747
Just was curious if this had ever been challenged in court.
bkkd is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 21:48   #6
Pima Pants
Urine Idiot
 
Pima Pants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 1,765


It's going to depend on exactly what the probation or parole conditions say. Many only prohibit the individual from having firearms under their control. In my days as a parole officer, if the family member locked up the guns and the probationer did not have any access, then it was alright. The same went for searching the residence; we could only search the areas under the control of the probationer and any "common areas" such as the living room.

The distinction was always made that the other family members were not on probation or parole and our jurisdiction did not extend to them.

Court precedents have historically required the probation or parole conditions to be "reasonable and enforceable". However, parole and probation officers are known for overstepping legal boundaries and making up the rules as they go along. Easy enough to challenge by complaining to their supervisors.
__________________
When you leave,
Weary of me,
Without a word I shall gently let you go.

--Kim Sowol

Last edited by Pima Pants; 06-20-2013 at 21:52..
Pima Pants is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 21:55   #7
bkkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 747
My thoughts exactly, if she does not have access to the guns, well.......

I'm thinking how can one person agree to a stipulation that violates another persons rights.....

I really think this would win in the Supreme Court

The stipulation would never be legally binding and should not have been a condition of parole or even asked.

Last edited by bkkd; 06-20-2013 at 21:58..
bkkd is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 21:59   #8
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
No in the house means no guns. Those are the agreed conditions. Seems clear to me.
__________________
Death twitches my ear. "Live," he says, "I am coming."
Virgil, Minor Poems

Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.
427 is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 21:59   #9
Pima Pants
Urine Idiot
 
Pima Pants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Prescott, AZ
Posts: 1,765


Quote:
Originally Posted by bkkd View Post
My thoughts exactly, if she does not have access to the guns, well.......

I'm thinking how can one person agree to a stipulation that violates another persons rights.....

I really think this would win in the Supreme Court
It probably would. I think the cousin misunderstood what the written parole or probation conditions say. It really doesn't matter what the PO says are the rules; they must be in writing.
__________________
When you leave,
Weary of me,
Without a word I shall gently let you go.

--Kim Sowol
Pima Pants is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 22:06   #10
kiole
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkkd View Post
My thoughts exactly, if she does not have access to the guns, well.......

I'm thinking how can one person agree to a stipulation that violates another persons rights.....

I really think this would win in the Supreme Court

The stipulation would never be legally binding and should not have been a condition of parole or even asked.
His rights weren't violated.. He can own and keep the guns, she will go to jail not him.
kiole is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 22:07   #11
bkkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by 427 View Post
No in the house means no guns. Those are the agreed conditions. Seems clear to me.
Until the same situation happens to you, lol the crime was non violent and she only got 3years and was shocked out after 45 days....

Last edited by bkkd; 06-20-2013 at 22:08..
bkkd is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 22:10   #12
bkkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 747
This is pure and simple back door gun control for an entire household.
bkkd is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 22:14   #13
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkkd View Post
This is pure and simple back door gun control for an entire household.
So fight it. Put the guns back in the house where the felon wife can't get them. When she's violated, she has standing to challenge it.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 22:14   #14
bkkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by kylenewman View Post
His rights weren't violated.. He can own and keep the guns, she will go to jail not him.
The condition itself violates the rest of the household and should not be allowed.
bkkd is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 22:17   #15
bkkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
So fight it. Put the guns back in the house where the felon wife can't get them. When she's violated, she has standing to challenge it.
That will have to be their call, I was wondering if it had ever been challenged before
bkkd is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 22:17   #16
427
 
427's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: KUMSC
Posts: 7,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkkd View Post
Until the same situation happens to you, lol
Not going to happen to me. I'm not giving up my firearms because I'm not and will not live with a felon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkkd View Post
the crime was non violent and she only got 3years and was shocked out after 45 days....
If those are the conditions of release and they are agreed to by both parties, those are the conditions that have to be met.

If a party doesn't like conditions they should walk away.

Can't do the time, don't do the crime.
__________________
Death twitches my ear. "Live," he says, "I am coming."
Virgil, Minor Poems

Enjoy yourself. It's later than you think.

Last edited by 427; 06-20-2013 at 22:23..
427 is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 22:21   #17
Gonzoso
Senior Member
 
Gonzoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NE PA
Posts: 4,707
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Copper View Post
In what way did she get in trouble? It has to either be a weapons offense or an offense of violence.

She is on probation, a term of that probation is 'no weapons in the house'. She agreed to that. If she does not agree to the terms of probation she is free to either go to county jail or prison for her offense.

We'd need more info at least; what state is this in?

If you truly feel it is a violation of their rights, why have they not contacted an attorney?
Not really, any offense with a possible maximum sentence of >1 year disqualifies a person. Many nonviolent misdemeanors qualify.
__________________
"Love is when you feel the same way about a person as you do about your motorcycle."
~Hunter S. Thompson
Gonzoso is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 22:23   #18
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkkd View Post
That will have to be their call, I was wondering if it had ever been challenged before
It has been. As mentioned above, it depends on what's actually written in the terms that got her released from prison. Your crimes cannot effect my rights. Now if hubby wants guns, and wife agreed to "no guns on premises", then he has a choice to make. Otoh, if she agreed to no guns under her control, it's a different issue.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline  
Old 06-20-2013, 22:24   #19
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 41,015


This is stupid.

If she is safe enough to be on parole, she should be safe enough to have guns.

If she's on parole and intends to shoot someone, she can get a gun elsewhere.

Denying felons guns makes about as much sense as every other gun law on the books.
certifiedfunds is online now  
Old 06-20-2013, 22:25   #20
Peace Warrior
CLM Number 221
Am Yisrael Chai
 
Peace Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: With the other 7,999,999
Posts: 26,922
Blog Entries: 2
IMHO, if she was represented by counsel, then it is a done deal.

If she was tried/adjudicated pro se, your cousin might have legal recourse with certain stipulations.
__________________
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs
"Nothing we're gonna do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that [our gun ban legislation] will bring gun deaths down..." - VPOTUS Joe Biden
"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible
"Thanks, but I typically don't follow the advice of condescending dolts." -GT's own: badge315
Peace Warrior is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:57.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,274
322 Members
952 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42