Is this a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment?

Why is that?

 

Trump got the Republican vote, he is a republican

 

And that means that he is a Republican AT HEART?

 

yep, he is 100% a Christian republican through and through

 

Based on what?

 

Republicans... and of course Trump himself

 

Why are you ignoring that he was a lifetime Democrat?

 

I don't know. I saw an interview with the couple and they indicated that. They also said the whole process was very cordial and they seemed to have willingly complied.

Perhaps it strengthens the case against them to show that the firearms were fully capable of firing? I don't know, sounds sketchy to me.

 

was he, no dem voted for him.... almost all republicans voted for Trump

 

That's probably because he was RUNNING as a Republican.

 

cause Trump is a Republican, that is the point

 

IMO DOJ/FBI veterans are far more dedicated to protecting the DOJ/FBI as an institution than they are to serving the USA. I expect them to keep covering up Deep State crimes including treason.

“Bill Barr is a talented person who was a good attorney general the first time. I liked him very much then and I think he’ll serve the Justice Department well,” said Comey."

“I like and respect Bill Barr,” Comey said after leaving a day-long congressional hearing on Capitol Hill. “I know he’s an ***institutionalist*** who cares deeply about the integrity of the Justice Department.”
THE NEW YORK POST, Comey praises Trump attorney general nominee William Barr, By Marisa Schultz December 7, 2018. (*** mine)
https://nypost.com/2018/12/07/comey-praises-trump-attorney-general-nominee-william-barr/

 

Yes, and Trump could not have breached the Big Blue Wall and won the election without significant support form Democrats and Independents.

 

With some non-Republican ideas. You DO acknowledge that he was a lifelong Republican don't you?

 

According to @FreshAir, "no dem voted for him."

 

No, he was not a life long Republican. He registered as a Republican in Manhattan in 1989, switched to the Reform Party in 1999, to the Democratic Party in 2001 and back to the Republican Party in 2009.

He is a life-long narcissist, however.

 

My bad. Wrong state.

True. There is no requirement that charges be filed immediately. And they may never be filed. As a prosecutor you have to apply the facts you know and believe you can prove to the law—including any defenses that may exist. The best way to go about it is to conduct a full investigation before charges are filed rather than charging immediately. Sometimes external circumstances prevent this, like potential flight or danger to the community, but I don’t see any reason here to rush to charge someone without fully fleshing out the facts. Law enforcement may be doing many things in the background that we don’t see. For example, they could be bringing witnesses before an investigative grand jury to a: lock in their testimony and b: find out what kind of witnesses they will be. They are even entitled to test the firearms for functionality and fingerprints if they want to.

I can’t explain the seizure of the AR because I do not know the laws of that state. What I can say is in Virginia the crime of brandishing does not require actually pointing the weapon at someone. It also includes displaying it in a threatening manner. It could be they working with a similar crime and definition. I’m not trying to justify what has happened, I’m only explaining how the 4th Amendment works here. Somewhere there exists a sworn affidavit—presented to a neutral judicial officer—which sets forth probable cause that a particular crime has been committed and probable cause that these firearms are connected as evidence of that crime. That triggered the issuance of the warrant that allowed the seizure of these firearms.

The news report I read quoted law enforcement as having seized the pistol as well. Both of which were voluntarily surrendered rather than suffering a search of the residence for the firearms. “Voluntary” only in the sense of “you can give them to us now or we will come and take them because we have this here search warrant….”

I would say the only real difference is in the manner of the execution of the warrant. The warrant would allow officers to show up unannounced, enter the house, and search it for the firearms. In this case the couple was apparently not viewed as an ongoing threat of either a violent response to the search or of an attempt to hide the weapons if forewarned, and so they were given the courtesy of being told about the warrant and they were allowed to surrender the firearms without having their house searched. That is not usually how search warrants are executed.

Otherwise search warrants for “legal” items happen all the time. I’ve helped write many a search warrant for otherwise “legal” items. For example, it is perfectly legal to have a bank account, but law enforcement will write a search warrant for your legal bank records if they believe your financial transactions of moving large sums of money without any visible legal employment is evidence you are involved in an illegal enterprise. It is perfectly legal to have an internet account, but if you troll a site monitored by law enforcement in search of child porn then law enforcement will obtain a search warrant for your user info and IP address to identify you. And when they do, then another search warrant will be issued to seize the legal computer you have in your house to search it for child porn. When undercover agents make multiple drug purchases from a residence, then in addition to illegal drugs a subsequent search warrant will look for perfectly legal items like scales (used in distribution) and even power bills or rent agreements that help identify who is connected to the use of the house. If you are suspected of being involved in illegal activity then a search warrant can issue to seize your legal cell phone to search it for contact information, call history, photographs, etc. which might show a connection to criminal activity. If a murder happens, then law enforcement may write a search warrant looking for an otherwise perfectly legal firearm—assuming they have probable cause.

Perfectly legal items can be—and often are—seized pursuant to a search warrant if there is probable cause to believe they are connected in some way to a crime.

I’m not defending what law enforcement has done here. I’m only commenting on the reports of a search warrant having been used to seize these firearms. That fact tells me that somewhere an affidavit exists where law enforcement has had to explain to a neutral judicial officer why they wanted to seize the firearms—and that affidavit will explain exactly what their reasoning is as well as the alleged crime they feel the firearms will be evidence of.

If they are suspected of having used or displayed a firearm in a manner that might be a crime then the 4th Amendment allows law enforcement to seek a search warrant to seize the firearm as evidence of that crime--the RKBA notwithstanding.

The fact that the firearms are captured on video does not prohibit law enforcement from attempting to further prove a case through seizing, testing, and/or actually presenting the firearms as physical evidence in a trial. If they are considering charging these people, then they are entitled to seize the firearms to have them available to show them directly to the judge and/or jury in their case.

Just because the 4th Amendment allows you to seize something in a criminal investigation does not mean it is necessary to do so to prove your case. Likewise, even if others feel it is unnecessary, if the 4th Amendment allows it, then law enforcement can seize an item and try to offer it as evidence in a trial. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is an incredibly high standard (and rightfully so). In trying to meet this burden law enforcement is not required to rely solely on third-party video in proving its case.

Is it necessary to convict them? I would say that here in Virginia I would not consider it necessary because we are not required to prove the firearm is operational for a brandishing charge. But I don’t know the law they are looking at.

The bottom line is if the search warrant is lawful then it is not an infringement of their RKBA. Is the search warrant lawful? A judicial officer (judge or a magistrate) had to authorize it so it is presumed lawful until it is challenged. But remember this search warrant was obtained by police without any input from the couple. They had no right to be heard or even be informed that the warrant was being sought. Because of this they will have an opportunity to challenge the search warrant and the evidence used to obtain it if they are ever charged. In addition, if this is like Virginia, then they can also challenge the search warrant without any charges having been filed to recover the property which was taken from them. The news report I read indicated this couple has hired an attorney. The attorney will be able to get a copy of the warrant and the supporting affidavit to review it for problems. I would say we need to watch to see if any motion to suppress the search or motion to demand a return of the property gets filed. If that happens then the facts will be presented in a courtroom open to the public and we will learn more. Otherwise we have to see the search warrant affidavit to see exactly why law enforcement wanted to seize the firearms and what evidence they presented to justify the warrant.

 

If one is under indictment they cannot buy a gun.

 

It's a stupid thing to do under any circumstances.

 

It's not what one assumes that counts, it the justification that counts.

Which is what I stated.

Because if they had they would have known better than to do what they did.

I they get convicted which will not happen that would have been very expensive in many ways, the least of which they both would have been out of a job.

I guess you fail to understand when you are arrested to go to jail pending a bond hearing, you cannot be at home when in jail can you?

 

Is that the law in MO?

 

When brandishing is enough to neutralize a threat why would anyone want to pull the trigger?

 

That Federal law, ever read a 4473?

 

Because brandishing can escalate not descalate and by doing it the good guy becomes the bad guy in the eyes of the law.

And it's a good way to be legally shot.

 

Please share the relevant text.
Has the couple been indicted by the feds?