Guns Confiscated in TN, names are being named finally

Discussion in 'Firearm Related' started by EJR914, Sep 25, 2010.

  1. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    1st post: http://restoretheconstitution.wordpress ... tennessee/

    2nd post with witness and names: http://restoretheconstitution.wordpress ... ent-in-tn/

    I was told that he has not received his guns back. Also, there is a "hear-say" policy at that guns not picked up within a certain amount of time by the original person, can be bought for $150 by officers. An AK and a pistol for $300 sounds good to me.

    It appears he may never get his guns back. He lived in Colorado.

    I'd also like to see dashcam video to authenticate everything.
     
  2. asbrand

    asbrand Active Member

    1,531
    0
    36
    So...basically what happened was...he talked to the State Trooper.

    Should have kept his mouth shut.

    Not condoning the trooper though...not at all.

    Just goes to show, though...
     

  3. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    It certainly goes to show that law-abiding should never volunteer that they have weapons in the car. And if asked... tell them that you respectfully decline to answer and further more that you do not consent to a search.

    He brought the dog out, though, so in this instance, it wouldn't matter if declined or not. The LEO was 100% certain that he was going to search the car, and furthermore, he was going to confiscate any weapon that he found, no matter if they were legal or not.
     
  4. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    62
    48
    What kind of well trained canine can't even manage a half arsed 'false alert'?? That's a pooch that needs a little training, right there!
     
  5. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    :rotfl2:
     
  6. kwikrnu

    kwikrnu Banned

    1,639
    0
    0
    The guy trusted the police, especially a trooper from a red state. :shattered: I'll bet he never makes that mistake again.
     
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,014
    1,419
    113
    This FOPA violation happened last April? Re-post when there is a lawsuit filing, and I will be more interested in reading it then. These "internet complaints" really accomplish nothing but cathartic venting and a feeling of community when people chime in about how "wronged" a person was . . .

    Sometimes it is time to stop typing and DO something . . .
     
  8. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    Edit: He has an attorney and they are now trying to work things out with the DA since the officer was not willing to drop charges and return his confiscated weapons.
     
  9. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    Shocking revelation in the Gun Confiscation case.

    It appears the victim does have legal counsel and has for sometime. I believe this one email is from May.

    He has not gotten his guns back, and according to the officer, the charges will be dropped by the officer if the officer and their department are able to keep his firearms. After all, once confiscated the officers in this department can buy his AK47 for $150, according to reports.

    “that guy does not need to have guns." -Trooper Loftis (confiscating officer)

    From the attorney:

    http://restoretheconstitution.wordpress ... omment-964

    We now have an officer confiscating firearms because he thinks he has the authority to decide who can and cannot have firearms on his discretion and whim. It appears he didn't like the man having a semi-automatic AK47, and he also thought that he had too much ammunition. Also, this guy should have never answered the officers questions on where he was coming from and why he needed so much ammunition. I know I wouldn't have. I'm not sure that would have saved him from weapons confiscation, though. It appears the officer was going to do what he wanted because he felt that the victim did not "need to have guns." My guess if for everyone's "safety."

    Thankfully, we have a document call the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. This officer is also not authorized to decide who can and cannot have a gun on his whim and discretion.

    It sounds like this officer needs to be relieved of his duties as a Trooper and prosecuted for theft and violation of the victims civil rights.

    His attorney is still trying to get this man's guns returned and the trumped up charges dropped. He is now trying to talk to the DA to discuss the charges and the case.

    It appears he may never get his confiscated weapons back. This man has probably now spent more money on an attorney than the cost of the guns and ammo confiscated. I guess they are hoping the money factor would allow them to keep his confiscated guns and ammo in return for dropping the trumped up charges.

    This is a very sad situation indeed. And that fact that it has occurred right here in good ole' America if very disturbing indeed.
     
  10. Puffyfish

    Puffyfish New Member

    1,182
    0
    0
    I wonder if the guns are still in the property room, or Bubba's room. :shattered: I'm just wonderin..
     
  11. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,014
    1,419
    113
    Wait for it . . .




    Wait . . . .









    :roll:
     
  12. pyromaster

    pyromaster Member

    859
    0
    16
    In TN does a Trooper have authority to dismiss charges? Wouldn't all this be handled by the DA's office at this point?