Police act swiftly after gun purchases

[level.eleven]

All the enforcers involved in the matter should be arrested for kidnapping and theft. Of course that won't happen, as we well know. Some people can get away with breaking the law with impunity. Looks like the taxpayers in that locale will have to pick up the bill instead.

I foresee a medal of valor. Per a state spokesweasel...

Joseph Bloom, a psychiatrist at Oregon Health & Science University and a specialist in civil commitment law, says the police who apprehended and detained Pyles were likely acting under the cover of Oregon law. Bloom says the police are permitted to make a determination on their own to take someone in for a mental health evaluation—there's no requirement that they first consult with a judge or mental health professional. Bloom believes this is a wise policy. "It's important to remember that this is a civil process," he says. "There's no arrest, these people aren't being taking to jail. It's not a criminal action."

See, there was no arrest made. Everything is squeaky clean under voluntary commitment law.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

"Girlfriend's gonna get PAID..." - Ted Buckland, 'Scrubs'

Seriously, no warrant?
Then you get can GTFO my property post-haste, and please don't mind me shucking the Mossberg while I wait for you to GTFO.

 

[Bill of Rights]

News media are not exactly known for 100% reliability in their reporting. For example:

"Because he had firearms" (and had made verbal threats in his disgruntled state), authorities were concerned.

The part in parentheses may be what was left out of the report.


If he left the house voluntarily, went with them voluntarily, etc., no warrant was needed. This does not address the issue of them taking his firearms, unless they asked him and he approved it.

In IN, even that would not be required, esp. if he made any threats:

IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.
(b) The court shall review the written statement submitted under subsection (a). If the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to retain the firearm. If the court finds that there is no probable cause to believe that the individual is dangerous, the court shall order the law enforcement agency having custody of the firearm to return the firearm to the individual.
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.

Bottom line: If someone gives reason for LE to believe that s/he is a danger to him/herself or others, they MUST ensure that that person get a psych evaluation. Anger + firearms + statements of threat = Ability + opportunity + jeopardy

Anger alone is no big deal. Firearms alone, also, no big deal. Statements of threat alone can be intimidation, and that is a criminal act. Combined with the other two, it has great potential to be a recipe for disaster. Not in every case, obviously, but a LEO cannot ignore the risk. It looks to me like bringing him in voluntarily for an eval was the least intrusive method of addressing the situation they had. And yes, it was voluntary, because had he instead chosen to do an armed standoff, there would have been a much different and far less pleasant outcome.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

News media are not exactly known for 100% reliability in their reporting. For example:

"Because he had firearms" (and had made verbal threats in his disgruntled state), authorities were concerned.

The part in parentheses may be what was left out of the report.


If he left the house voluntarily, went with them voluntarily, etc., no warrant was needed. This does not address the issue of them taking his firearms, unless they asked him and he approved it.

In IN, even that would not be required, esp. if he made any threats:

IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
(c) This section does not authorize a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search or seizure if a warrant would otherwise be required.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill if he had made threats don't you think at least one of the media outlets would of stated that?

And I don't think he went along voluntarily. From this article

"I looked out the window and saw the SWAT team pointing their guns at my house. The officer on the phone told me to turn myself in. I told them I would, on three conditions: I would not be handcuffed. I would not be taken off my property. And I would not be forced to get a mental health evaluation. He agreed. The second I stepped outside, they jumped me. Then they handcuffed me, took me off my property, and took me to get a mental health evaluation."

It sounds like he agreed to step outside and talk to them but that's it.
In Indiana they could of forced him for a psych eval under IN immediate detention code but entering his home and performing a warrantless search and seizure for the firearms I think would be unlawful.

 

[rvb]

...once in PA... Since there was a .38 out there somewhere in his name....

THIS is the part of these stories that always bothers me. I understood when I was in MD and we had registration, but how the hell are there guns out there "in my name." PA doesn't have registration does it? Where is that information coming from?

Now in this story it sounds like they only new he had guns because they just watched him buy them, but in your example? can you elaborate?

THIS is why I'm against background checks.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill if he had made threats don't you think at least one of the media outlets would of stated that?

And I don't think he went along voluntarily. From this article
It sounds like he agreed to step outside and talk to them but that's it.
In Indiana they could of forced him for a psych eval under IN immediate detention code but entering his home and performing a warrantless search and seizure for the firearms I think would be unlawful.

Based on this info, I think we are rapidly losing any semblance of Constitutionality.

I sincerely hope this gentleman looks upon this as a financial opportunity. I also hope that he takes his case as far as it may go for resolution.

Thanks for the update, TJBB!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

This is much worse than what I had suspected.

The skies above Oregon about to turn legal pad yellow.

 

[Joe Williams]

Calling this a voluntary commtment is like saying a bank voluntarily gave a gift to a bank robber since he didn't actually shoot anyone.

They had time for a SWAT callup, they had time for a warrant. The emergency laws are intended for times when there is no such time, such as a cop on scene at a call decides the nutjob he's talking to, that just threated to let loose at the neighborhood kids probably shouldn't have those guns handy. And they've still got to submit to a judge afterwards. It's not looking like that was even done in this case.

I think the cops are screwed when a "jury of their peers" gets ahold of this case, which I think is inevitable. And as more comes out, I think they should be. Sadly, they won't be in jail I'm depressed by this. I was always proud of my badge, and detest bad cops with a burning passion. This urination on the Constitution involved 5 law enforcement agencies, and if it happened without a warrant, every cop involved is corrupt, and traitors to the law, IMHO. IF it happened the way the guy says it did.

 

[dross]

Personally, this part was my favorite:

"And what if Pyles had refused to 'voluntarily' surrender to the police? 'Well, yes,' Bloom says. 'I guess then it would become a criminal matter.'"

The application of this principle would sure make LE's job a lot easier.

 

[mrjarrell]

In a semi-update on the situation the Oregon Firearms Federation has a press release on the issue and are soliciting donations for legal action against the people involved. There are also links to more news on the matter and a look at what happened. Heads should roll and a lesson should be learned across the nation that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated.

From The Oregon Firearms Federation

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Imagine your telephone ringing in the middle of the night. The caller informs you that he is a police officer. He wants to "get you the help and appropriate resources you need." But wait, you have not asked for any help, don't need any help, and certainly don't want this "help" in the middle of the night.

But this offer of "help" and "appropriate resources" is an offer you can't refuse. You see, your home is surrounded by SWAT teams from multiple jurisdictions. There are men in helmets with machine guns everywhere. Snipers are aiming at your home. You are told to come outside. You are promised you won't be arrested, handcuffed or removed from your property. You are told your possessions will not be confiscated. The friendly paramilitary troops outside your house just want to chat with you.

Any rational person would recognize the danger in refusing the orders of dozens of heavily armed cops.

You leave your home and immediately you are handcuffed at gunpoint and taken to a mental hospital for a "psychological evaluation." The police enter your home without a warrant, without permission, without probable cause and confiscate your firearms.

You have NOT been "arrested" so you have no right to an attorney. You have no right to remain silent. You are subjected to a "hold." You can be held for up to 180 days. You can be medicated against your will. Your crime? The lawful and state-approved purchase of firearms.

None of this is fiction or speculation. It happened to an Oregonian on March 8th. This is the new face of "gun control" in the age of Obama. Buy a gun, go to a mental hospital.

David Pyles of Medford Oregon purchased several firearms between March 5th and 7th. In Oregon, a firearms purchase made through a dealer requires the approval of the Oregon State Police. David received approvals for all purchases, but it was these legal purchases that the police used to justify the raid on David's home and the state-sponsored kidnapping that followed.

Shortly before David made these purchases, he had been put on "administrative leave" from his job at the Oregon Department of Transportation. He was involved in a dispute with a superior which he was attempting to resolve though normal channels and union procedures when he was told he would have to work from home.

His gun purchases were long planned and the result of some extra cash he had on hand because of a tax refund. David already owned other firearms. But the State Police, after approving his purchases, contacted local law enforcement in what, at this time, appears to be a blatant violation of the law. And because his employer accused him of being "disgruntled," his perfectly legal gun buys became the excuse for an unlawful and unwarranted attack on his freedom and property.

A few hours after being dragged to an involuntary "psychological evaluation" David was released following clinical psychiatric evaluation which determined he was sane, of no threat to anyone, and of no threat or harm to himself. But the police kept his guns. At first, he was told he would have to wait 2 to 4 weeks to get his confiscated property back, but widespread attention and outrage by media and bloggers forced the police to return his guns.

His employer meanwhile posted notices warning other workers to run away if they saw David and call police. They also said David had made no threats to anyone.

David broke no law. He committed no crime and threatened no one. Yet, with no warrant and no probable cause, David was dragged off into the night by heavily armed troops with no legal authority to do so and he was given none of the protections a common thief would get from the legal system.

We cannot say how his life will be affected by this incident, especially now that, thanks to the NRA and the Brady Campaign joining forces, "mental health" records are being sent by the states to the Obama administration. We do know that this is a very dangerous situation and one the police have refused to explain or justify.

You can read an excellent and in depth review or what happened to David here and here. You can listen to an audio version here. You can download an in-depth analysis of the dangers of these kinds of raids here.

The Oregon Firearms Federation has been in contact with David since soon after the incident. He as recently expressed an interest in getting some assistance in his legal battle to hold the various actors in this chilling fiasco accountable.

This is a case with nationwide implications. All gun owners, in fact all Americans should be horrified and fearful of the"Minority Report" implications of taking someone by force in the absence of any crime or even an indication that a crime was planned.

What the gun grabbers have failed to achieve legislatively, they are trying to do the old-fashioned Soviet way. Just claim you're mentally ill and "not cooperating."

If you would like to assist David in his battle against this outrageous deprivation of his rights, the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation has set up a fund for him. You may make a tax deductible donation to the Foundation or if you prefer, you can make a donation directly to David.
David Pyles
c/o the "David Pyles Legal Defense Fund"
P.O. Box 728
Medford, OR 97501

If you choose to donate through OFEF you can donate by check to :
Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation
PO Box 556
Canby OR 97013

Be sure to note that your donation is for David.

If you would prefer to make a secure donation online, you can safely do so at this link. Under "Donation Type" be sure to pick Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation and make a note that your gift is for David's defense. Clearly this kind of abuse must be stopped. We are all at risk. Thanks for your support.[/FONT]

 

[E5RANGER375]

In a semi-update on the situation the Oregon Firearms Federation has a press release on the issue and are soliciting donations for legal action against the people involved. There are also links to more news on the matter and a look at what happened. Heads should roll and a lesson should be learned across the nation that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated.

From The Oregon Firearms Federation

IN RESPONSE TO THE PICTURE IN THE ABOVE POST >>>>>


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-HKPTBoR9U"]YouTube - Gi joe - Gay[/ame]