pro-2A speech constitutes mental instability, guns confiscated.

[danb]

I am sure glad no one is coming for my guns.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...s-claims-based-on-gun-seizure-can-go-forward/

jackpot.

 

[G O B]

A clear civil rights violation. Where is the ACLU?

 

[Brooklyn]

This case will even put the entire FOID system in the courts cross hairs, as it should be under substantive due process.


Liberal overreach to the rescue one again..

This makes me very optimistic.. Yet another way to get to a standard of review from another circuit ..

 

[amoebicmagician]

poor guy, goes in trying to make a difference and talk to his legislators and gets his guns confiscated for his trouble.

I hope he gets enough money from this to retire

 

[Vile Shadow]

"No, we're not coming for your guns at all. You all are just paranoid"

Paranoid, my ass.

And I'll bet the Washington Compost was only too happy to plaster that right on the front page, too.

I hope he makes a mint from the lawsuit that I would be filing the NEXT DAY if it were me.

 

[rem87062597]

I'm not going to pass judgement before I see exactly what the guy said. "Unpopular political views … about his support of Second Amendment rights" could be anything from "I support the 2nd amendment and you should as well" to "I'm going to shoot you in the face because of your position on gun control" and anything in between.

 

[Vile Shadow]

I'm not going to pass judgement before I see exactly what the guy said. "Unpopular political views … about his support of Second Amendment rights" could be anything from "I support the 2nd amendment and you should as well" to "I'm going to shoot you in the face because of your position on gun control" and anything in between.

Not a fair comparison. To say "I'm going to shoot you in the face" is a threat, and is therefore a crime. The first sentence is not even close.

 

[gabe72]

Wow

 

[jonnyl]

I don't know what exactly he said , but I'd think that if it was a direct threat of violence that they would have charged him with that.

Doesn't seem like much of a problem that a politician can just declare someone mentally ill. Not much room for abuse there!

 

[Vile Shadow]

Doesn't seem like much of a problem that a politician can just declare someone mentally ill. Not much room for abuse there!

Doesn't it take a doctor to do that i.e. a psychiatrist?

That would mean this durn fool was practicing medicine without a license.

 

[ma_deuce]

I like this comment:

1.) Any sane adult citizen--who's never been convicted of a felony--may own a firearm.

2.) Desire to own a firearm is prima facie evidence of insanity.

3.) A compulsion to disagree with the truth of rule #2 is prima facie evidence of insanity.

4.) Have a nice day or I'll lock your @ss up. Keep looking at me like that if you don't think I can do it.

 

[Vile Shadow]

I like this comment:

1.) Any sane adult citizen--who's never been convicted of a felony--may own a firearm.

2.) Desire to own a firearm is prima facie evidence of insanity.

3.) A compulsion to disagree with the truth of rule #2 is prima facie evidence of insanity.

4.) Have a nice day or I'll lock your @ss up. Keep looking at me like that if you don't think I can do it.

Мы являемся правительством, и мы не будет ставиться под сомнение.

In English, "We are the Government and we will not be questioned.

 

[daNattyFatty]

I don't know what exactly he said , but I'd think that if it was a direct threat of violence that they would have charged him with that.

Exactly. Maryland has a law against threatening violence against a public official. I'm willing to bet most other states do too.

 

[Brychan]

Didn't our own dear Sen. Frosh say something along the line that gun owners are nuts?

 

[Doctor_M]

 

[Vic]

I read nothing to state that the man threatened anyone and they state gave the guns back. I think the man has a good case and should really spank the law in this case. Time will tell.
Vic

 

[BeerHunter]

Wow, what an interesting case. Based on the court's analysis, it's unreasonabale, at least for me, to believe that the plaintiff's statements could reasonably be construed as a threat. I think he just might be able to afford a lot more cool firearms when this case is over!

 

[Hopalong]

Wow. First, Second, and Fourth amendment issues all in one case. Hints of Tenth and Fourteenth in there too. This will be one to watch for sure.

 

[Relwarc]

Glad he is able to defend himself... but this is exactly why I keep my mouth shut.

None of my neighbors, co-workers, no one knows about my gun ownership. It only takes one idiot to call the police and say "I don't feel safe because he openly talks about guns" and I get my privacy invaded. No thanks.

 

[FrankOceanXray]

Would it be possible to have this settled without judgement?

That is, pay this guy off handsomely to leave this behavior unchecked?