LAWYER'S GUNS SEIZED

Discussion in 'In the News' started by gunsmoker, Mar 2, 2006.

  1. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,299
    110
    63
    According to the 2/24/2006 issue of The Fulton County Daily Report, a newspaper for the Altanta legal community (it is mailed to most law offices across the state), a Public Defender for the Griffin Judicial Circuit, Mr. Arthur English, had his entire gun collection confiscated when the police were searching his house for property (appliances) allegedly stolen by his brother.

    Although there is an "ongoing investigation" to determine if attorney Arthur English has any involvement in the many and serious crimes of his brother Mac, there have been no criminal charges filed alleging any such connection. Yet when the cops served the search warrant on the attorney's home looking for other property (and finding no such stolen property), they encountered various assault-style weapons and silencers, and the Sheriff's Department confiscated them.

    Even after Arthur English produced the federal transfer documents and even after the Sheriff confirmed through BATF that the silencers were properly registered to the attorney, the Sheriff refused (and is still refusing to this day) to return the weapons or the suppressors, saying that he can hold them for as long as Mr. English is the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation.

    What do you think of this business? Should being the "subject of an investigation" disqualify you from owning weapons? Some kinds of weapons only? Should the right to own weapons be lost upon the commencement of such an investigation, or by it reaching a certain point? What if the investigation is still "ongoing" a month from now, or six months from now, or five years from now? When should the attorney get his weapons back? Should they ever have been confiscated at all? And if they were prematurely confiscated, when would be the correct time to confiscate them--- maybe only AFTER a grand jury returns a True Bill of Indictment for a felony charge? What if the charge is one that the DA's office can simply file an Accusation on, instead of taking the case to a Grand Jury at all?
     
  2. thebugman

    thebugman New Member

    255
    0
    0
    Gun Control isn't about guns-- It's about CONTROL.

    What a bunch of crap. So if a lawyer has no teeth to encourage the Sherriff to do the right thing who does? :banghead: It's LEO's of this type that give the rest of the community a bad image. WHat county was the Sherriff in? I'm guessing Fulton.
     

  3. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,299
    110
    63
    Lamar County

    It's in Lamar County, and Sheriff Joe Buice is also the would-be victim of the attorney's brother Mac, who tried to hire a hit man to kill Buice when Buice charged Mac with illegal hunting some years ago.
     
  4. Gunstar1

    Gunstar1 Administrator

    8,460
    5
    38
    I figured the sheriff was taking something personally.

    Though my guess was the lawyer for getting people free.
     
  5. thebugman

    thebugman New Member

    255
    0
    0
    Re: Lamar County

    Ahh the county of my first GFL and first wife. :lol:
     
  6. legacy38

    legacy38 Active Member

    9,000
    9
    38
    Hopefully said lawyer will sue the sheriff into the poor house over this one, and he should prosecute the sheriff for theft.
     
  7. Manwell

    Manwell New Member

    51
    0
    0
    Just another of the many instances where the government simply ignores the law and tramples the rights of mere citizens. It is only going to get worse as the sheeple population continues to grow.

    Manwell
     
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83

    I also think this is more common with county governments than any other form of government. For some reason, counties tend to believe the law does not apply to their actions. I do not know why this is.
     
  9. Manwell

    Manwell New Member

    51
    0
    0
    I believe that if they weren’t allowed to get away with it, it would happen so often.

    Manwell
     
  10. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    Gunsmoker,
    To answer your questions, neither being the subject of an investigation, nor being indicted/accused, nor even being convicted, should result in the confiscation of guns, unless the guns were related to the crime. Being the subject of an investigation is nothing. Being indicted or accused is something, but the due process implications are tremendous of depriving someone of property without being convicted. As for the convicted felon, well the law says he can't possess guns. It doesn't say the governement gets a windfall. Said felon can sell, give away or destroy his guns. If he chooses none of those options, he risks prosecution of another crime (the conviction of which might result in cofiscation).

    As for the case at hand, it's difficult to imagine the search warrant included guns that were not stolen. Assuing not, the guns were not legally seized, and the sheriff could find himself on the wrong end of a 1983 action.
     
  11. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    Please explain.
     
  12. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    Sorry. It is a federal lawsuit filed against a government agent for depriving someone of his civil rights under color of state law. The number comes from the code section of the federal statutes under which the right to bring an action is found (Chapter 42, Section 1983 of the United States Code).
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
  14. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
  15. geaux_tigers

    geaux_tigers Member

    994
    0
    16
    Thanks guys.

    What the heck does this mean:
    injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable

    When The Supremes said "to provide 'a remedy where state law was inadequate'" in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, do they mean that you'd have to go through the state courts first before going federal?

    I think I may write my Congressman asking him introduce a bill limiting the number of commas a judge may use in each sentence of his decision. :)
     
  16. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    I also don't understand the justification for denying a firearm purchase to someone accused of a felony. Under our jurisprudence (innocent until proven guilty), such person is presumed under the law to be innocent. Because there supposedly is a federal constitutional right to keep and bear arms, one must assume that right includes the right to buy an arm to keep and bear. If that right is taken away based on being accused of a crime, then the right has been taken away without due process.

    And, given the "felonization" of America, I don't think it makes sense to deprive every felon of the right to possess (or to carry) a firearm. Martha Stewart was convicted of lying to investigators, and nothing else. For this felony, she is forever barred from possessing a firearm. Regardless of my impressions of her otherwise, I don't think this behavior merits that result.
     
  17. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    That applies only to 1983 suits against judges.
     
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    63,351
    383
    83
    No. This refers to one of the underlying purposes of the statute. Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act because states were themselves depriving blacks of their rights under the Consitution and federal statutes. Think about it this way. A black man in 1870, who had never been convicted of a crime, was a sharecropper on the same land where his father was a slave, in any southern state you choose, decides to walk on the street with a pistol carried openly on his belt.

    What do you think the reaction would be?

    What if he actually used it in self defense?

    Likely, there would be a lynching, and, under those sheets, would be the Sheriff and his "special deputies" (i.e., strikebreakers and the KKK) and maybe the judge. And what would the prominent citizens in the county serving on a jury do when that unfortunate man brought a state civil rights lawsuit?

    Congress passed the law because the remedy under state law was inadequate.

    Make sense now?
     
  19. jrm

    jrm Sledgehammer

    3,458
    1
    38
    This provision is more theoretical than practical. Although the issue comes up occasionally, the truth of the matter is that there usually is not an adequate state remedy for the violation of a protected federal right.
     
  20. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    24,299
    110
    63
    Follow up

    Follow-up information: This citizen and defense attorney, Arthur English, was convicted of some kind of felony theft. I don't know if he will appeal the conviction, or if it would do any good (appellate courts don't like to second-guess what a jury finds as a matter of fact). He will go to prison for a couple of years, and he will be disbarred. His gun rights are gone.

    Question: What's going to happen to his legally-registered machineguns and silencers? If there's an auction, I want to be in on it. The weapons are not stolen, nor is it alleged that he used them, or intended to use them, to facilitate any crime, so they are not "contraband" subject to being destroyed. Will the cops get to keep them for "law enforcement purposes"? Or can he direct that they be transferred to a Class 3 dealer, sold to a bona-fide purchaser with BATF approval, and he (English) gets the proceeds from the sale (minus the administrative costs, shipping, etc).