There are at least 40 people in Oklahoma that are as smart as a house plant

I agree it is a horrible crime. But the way the police are going about it. Is not right either.
Click to expand...

While I believe anyone hurting a child should be put to death I very much disagree with this method of finding the killers, much like searching people's homes for a suspect or illegal weapon that is where we are heading if you submit to this and as someone said if 40 out of 100 don't comply they are consider suspect very bad road guys, willing to help one thing but being a fool is another.

What are the odds the "weapon" of interest is a legally registered firearm.
 
I wouldn't comply with this request, if I had a Glock .40 and was unfortunate
enough to be living in Oklahoma.

What next? Next time there's a murder with a knife, everybody with a
knife is a suspect?

Next time there's a rape, everbody with a johnson is a suspect?

What if they test everybody and none of the guns match? Will they get
a forensic examiner to "play ball" and lie and say some random guy's gun
matches? What if that random guy cannot afford an attorney? He'll be
assigned a public defender, and maybe that public defender will also
"play ball".

What's this country coming to?

I have a gun (actually four) and I have a johnson. Am I automatically
a suspect in every murder and every rape? Ridiculous!
 
Stagger Lee do you have any documentation of this sort of harebrained scheme (test all the guns you believe are in the neighborhood) even once in the 500 year history of the gun actually catching a criminal? If so I'd like for you to post it.

Does generically denigrating police officers make you feel like a man, MeeknMild? I mean, why come across like that in public? Is it fear or jealousy?
Click to expand...
No, it is a literary reference to Sheriff Andy Taylor's enthusiastic but not very bright deputy and that deputy's eager young sidekick. We're in an informal medium here so I can afford to be informal. :rolleyes:

In the real world I wasted much of last week in and out of the county courthouse, spending real money on an attorney to quash a subpoena for me to testify as an expert witness in a divorce case ... entirely because such testimony would have violated confidentiality for one of my clients. Privacy rights, the right to own property and the right to be let alone are real issues, not something designed to prevent Barney and Goober from tracking down crooks as you seem to believe.

In that same real world, if I were one of those unfortunate citizens who'd received the letter I would have written a polite letter to the sheriff involved telling him that I'd received Barney's letter. I'd inform him that I was not involved in the crime; he knows where to find me and he can make arrangements to talk if he needs to but otherwise there would be no response on my part without a warrant. (Informally, as I know the sheriff in real life, I'd have told him the rest of my opinions face to face and in words.)

The reason I'd do that is that I really believe that in addition to our duty to abide by the principles of the rule of law we also have a duty to refuse unlawful orders.
 
Last edited:
Post #4 doesn't seem like you have a choice.

Bring it to us
Or we will come and get it
Or tell us where it is.

I didn't read where it it said if you don't want to comply call here. Oh I forgot they will already know who didn't comply. Doesn't seem voluntary. Now does it.
Click to expand...

Winston, what part of the opening line of the letter didn't you understanding about them requesting voluntary assistance? That is stated up front. They would like for owners to comply and give you several options to make that happen including bringing it in yourself or them coming to get it.

Why is that hard to understand?
 
If I'd recently purchased a used pistol in a private sale (or even from a pawn shop), I would voluntarily cooperate with their attempts to eliminate my gun as a possible link to the criminal.

If I hadn't, I wouldn't.

If they use people's non-cooperation as a way to claim "probable cause" to get a warrant & all that other stuff, that's unacceptable and wrong. But as long as they are simply asking the public for voluntary help eliminating some possibilities, I don't see any harm in it.

pax
 
This thread takes the cake.

The police ask for help in solving a crime.

Help them or not. Your choice.

Happens day in, day out, and has for time immemorial: asking for cooperation of those living in a certain area, known to frequent a certain place, known to drive a certain car, known to possess acetylene torches...and -- gasp! -- owning a certain gun.

And for those worried about being a "suspect" because you don't want to respond to the police request: grow up.

When there's a rape of a woman by a male, every male is a suspect. When there's a hit and run by a red American model pick-up, every owner of one is a suspect. When somebody gets killed with a Ka-Bar-type knife -- guess what? -- police are very interested in those owning that type of knife. (The police use narrowing devices in all of these instances, but that's the idea.)

Anyway, the fact that you're not talking truck or knife, but a sacred .40, doesn't change the equation. And it never will.
 
wow, some of the outright ignorance in this thread is quite painful to read through.

here's how it works.

everyone that owned a glock .40 is a suspect, which is proven by the letter sent to them.

followed by all that failed to offer they're cooperation, becoming prime suspects.

which gives the "probable cause" to interagate and prod about the lives of those that refused to comply.

chances are great that none of these people will be found to have been associated with the murders, however the chances of the JBT's finding reasons to incriminate/intimedate the "suspects" will certainly be high considering the better than 10,000 laws one can be in violation of. they will then be used as an example to others as proof it is best to comply.

you know..........like a police state..........

i'm sorry.......that could never happen in the good ol' U.S. of A.

:rolleyes:
 
everyone that owned a glock .40 is a suspect
Click to expand...

Good God, I hope so. The police then try to narrow it down.

which gives the "probable cause" to interagate and prod about the lives of those that refused to comply.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about questioning people and poking around, the police don't need any "probably cause" to do that. In fact...it's their job!
 
I'm going to make a prediction here.

They will not find the murder weapon by this method of inquiry just like the Maryland police never found the AR used by Mohammed and Malvo by collecting and testing all the local .223s.
 
If you're talking about questioning people and poking around, the police don't need any "probably cause" to do that. In fact...it's their job!
Click to expand...

actually that isn't what i am taking about, if they infact were to do some "questioning people and poking around" maybe they wouldn't have to do a mass roundup of innocent citizens in an attempt to send a message by trampling on the rights of others.

unfortunately disregarding civil rights has become all too much "their job"
 
a mass roundup of innocent citizens
Click to expand...

You must have meant this for some other thread. This thread concerns a police letter asking certain gun owners to voluntarily have their guns tested.

They will not find the murder weapon by this method of inquiry
Click to expand...

True that. And even the police know it would be like lightning striking to find the weapon this way.

What they're really doing is looking for the murderer, not the gun. They're shaking the bushes, seeing what falls out when they start talking to folks who owned these particular models. Even that, however, will likely be a dry well.

But all of the alleys the police run down turn out to be blind...right until they run down one that's not.
 
pax said:
If I'd recently purchased a used pistol in a private sale (or even from a pawn shop), I would voluntarily cooperate with their attempts to eliminate my gun as a possible link to the criminal.
Click to expand...

That seems reasonable and probably would have made more sense as a request by the police.

'If you purchased a used Glock .40 after the crime, please let us test it'.

I'm not going to let them test a pistol I had prior to the crime. They will just have to take my word for it that it wasn't me, if not they can get a warrant based on probable cause and I'll hand it over.
 
An incredibly idiotic tactic that could lead to eliminating as a suspect the actual killer, as well as being a unwarranted intrusion on the innocent. That anyone with a lick of sense could defend it is unbelievable.
 
unfortunately disregarding civil rights has become all too much "their job"
Click to expand...

Please explain specifically what civil rights are being violated and how.

It isn't the first as they aren't infringing freedom of speech in any way.
I know it isn't the 2nd Amendment because no infringement on the right to keep and bear arms has occurred.
It isn't the 3rd as no troops are being quartered improperly.
It isn't the 4th because no improper search or seizure has occurred especially since participation is voluntary.
It isn't 5-8 because they don't pertain, not yet anyway.
It isn't 9.
It isn't 10.

What am I missing? How has this letter of request violated any civil rights? I apologize for being so dense-headed, but my failure to understand means you are going to have to explain this to me in explicit detail for me to understand.
 
The letter says it's voluntary, but then the tone starts to become demanding and to give what sound like orders.

No one has mentioned the fact that testing such as this is not an exact science and there is a real possiblity of being falsely accused, especially in the kind of overheated atmosphere this case has generated.

I also thought of Trooper Green's gun, taken from him by a meth dealer. I thought OHP used .40 at that time, but I found an old article saying it was a .357 SIG Glock, and they seemed to think it had been dumped in the waste bin at a motel.
 
Winston, what part of the opening line of the letter didn't you understanding about them requesting voluntary assistance? That is stated up front. They would like for owners to comply and give you several options to make that happen including bringing it in yourself or them coming to get it.

Why is that hard to understand?
Click to expand...

naive.......

The letter says it's voluntary, but then the tone starts to become demanding and to give what sound like orders.

No one has mentioned the fact that testing such as this is not an exact science and there is a real possiblity of being falsely accused, especially in the kind of overheated atmosphere this case has generated.
Click to expand...

ding ding ding we have a winner!!!!:D


Lesson 1:

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Don't Talk to Cops, Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
 
What if the perp replaces everything except the frame and sends it in?

The brain-dead law considers the frame as the firearm. It's the only part of
the pistol you need an FFL license to have shipped to you. It's also a part
of the firearm which does not make an impression on the casing or the bullet.
Think about it. The magazine touches the cartridge. The breech face of
the slide touches the cartridge. The firing pin or striker touches it. The
extractor touches it. The barrel leaves its mark on the bullet. The frame
never touches the round.

So, the perp can get himself off the suspect list while others who refuse
to comply with this nonsense remain suspects.
 
Please explain specifically what civil rights are being violated and how.
Click to expand...

so they have the gun that was used in the murders?.

and they traced the serial #'s back through the books from which the handgun was purchased?.

then they got a name and address from those books?.

no, no, and no.

this is nothing but another step in the direction implimenting, and enforcing gun registration And if for some rediculous reason this ploy actually does work, it will only reinforce support for more of it.

implying that people who choose to support the 2nd ammendment be considered suspects, simply by owning a firearm?.

now a citizen has become a suspect because he is envoking a god given right that is protected (not given) by the constitution?.

as is well stated here:

REGISTRATION IS MORE THAN AN INFRINGEMENT

The Second Amendment reads. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The question may be asked, "Is registration of a particular gun truly such a burden that it can be called an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms?"

To begin with, if we were speaking of registering religious items or communications devices, none but socialists would dare ask such a question. Yet the Second Amendment directly follows the amendment concerned with the free exercise of religion and freedom of the press. The Second Amendment holds a place of priority in the Bill of Rights, which is primarily a list of inalienable personal rights.

But to answer the above question — Yes. Registration is absolutely an infringement, on at least three grounds. In fact, we will see that the rights versus privileges issue makes registration far more than a mere infringement.

Information. Registration of a firearm gives the government information that can be used (and has been used, and is being used right now) to confiscate that firearm or to pinpoint its owner for weapon seizure, fining, incarceration, or execution. Having the government in possession of this information is directly contrary to the Second Amendment's intent to ensure that citizens always possess the means to overthrow the government should it become corrupt or tyrannical.

Government control. Allowing the government to seize a citizen's firearm, or to suspend, revoke, or diminish a citizen's ability to defend life, family, property, and country for paperwork omissions or errors, for regulatory violations, for minor infractions of the law, for misdemeanors, or arguably for anything less than conviction for a major crime of violence is also directly contrary to the intent of the Second Amendment. This is because virtually all citizens have committed, or will commit, one or more of the listed non-violent errors listed above, whereas the entire point of the Second Amendment is to place this same citizenry's right to keep and bear arms (and therefore the right of self-defense) out of the government's grasp.

Right versus privilege. Critically relevant to all our rights, is that any edict that attempts to convert a right into a state-granted privilege by imposing prior requirements — such as registration — before it may be exercised goes far beyond mere "infringement" of that right; it becomes an attempt at outright abrogation of the right.


http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?id=1052
 
This is amusing.

The police ask for certain assistance, which you're free to reject.

It's standard, it's the way police always work and will continue to work, it infringes on noone's rights but -- apparently all that matters -- since it involves a gun, it is a shredding of the Constitution, a danger to democracy, and in fact undermines, when you get right down to it, Western Civilization itself!

Entertaining!
 
The police ask for certain assistance, which you're free to reject.
Click to expand...

yes, and also "free" to accept the consiquences of rejecting such an offering.


The individuals who were "invited" to bring their guns in but didn't now will be included in the ongoing investigation, as well as people who were identified by former owners as having purchased that type of weapon recently, authorities said.



"We'll be checking on them," Jessica Brown, a spokeswoman for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, told the newspaper.
Click to expand...

so now because you were "free to reject" any assistance, regardless of reason, you now must prove your innocence?.

yeah.........yeah, that's no big deal at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top