Assault weapon and large cache of ammunition seized from Fishkill man

libertysnake said:

Because things like high capacity magazines, and grips, and all that crap isn't forbidden by 2A. It's just a bullshit policy that Karens made up to put republicans in jail.

It's a policy with teeth, but I will always consider it to be a violation of the constitution.

Also, I very much want to know what grounds they are charging him on / what gave them grounds to tack on all these charges. There seemed to be some incident, but he wasn't actively committing a crime at the time they gave him the restraining order.

Click to expand...

Really just Really!!!

Pursuant to the Dutchess County Family Court order, Messina, a Crosby Court resident was required to vacate the residence and surrender his weapons.

Under a Warrant!! So you would think someone under a domestic incident that you have no idea what or how serious it was should be allowed to keep his firearms?

Well, I mean, that whole due process business...

nortatoga said:

Really just Really!!!

Pursuant to the Dutchess County Family Court order, Messina, a Crosby Court resident was required to vacate the residence and surrender his weapons.

Under a Warrant!! So you would think someone under a domestic incident that you have no idea what or how serious it was should be allowed to keep his firearms?

Click to expand...

I think that no one should be able to have their rights stripped from them without due process. This is not due process. We've handed over total authority without due process.

I understand the urgency, but we've given our government the benefit of the doubt. Time and time again, whenever they say the rights will be restored they aren't. I highly doubt they had the intention of giving him his firearms back at any point, without a long legal battle, before they even knew they didn't meet the SAFE Act policies.

Maybe we should get better about quicker trials or have juries on standby to expedite this, but I'm not "OK" leaving life altering decisions in the hands of judges and LEO.

just a thought .. he was told to vacate the house first .. so he can't go there and get his guns and turn them it .. LOL ..

nortatoga said:

It would seem the Court knew he had weapons.

"Police Lieutenant Paul Schettino said that officers were serving a temporary order of protection on 29-year-old David Messina on Friday after he was involved in a domestic incident earlier in the week. Pursuant to the Dutchess County Family Court order, Messina, a Crosby Court resident was required to vacate the residence and surrender his weapons."

Click to expand...

*All* his "bladed weapons" ?

Is the guy now forbidden from eating a steak ?

If he's that dangerous, lock him up.

If he's not, let him be.

It's that simple.

Its pretty unusual for an order of protection to come with a search warrant. And it doesn't make sense to order someone to surrender something and confiscate it without giving an opportunity to surrender it.

Fellas, once again, we're the victim of lazy reporting.

Celt said:

That aggravates the shit outta me. They have no business taking those items(really no items should be taken but we are stuck with unsafe act regardless if we all know its unconstitutional). Surprised they didnt mention taking his camo clothes, targets, portable tree stand, sand sock, etc... why stop there..

Click to expand...

....and a wide variety of specialized cutlery in his kitchen.

So this sounds like it wasn't a serious domestic incident. It happened "earlier in the week.'' If this was serious, severe actions would have been implied much quicker. Not days later. This poor guy was railroaded for what?

To be made a monster in the supporting eyes of the snow flakes. It fits the agenda of the "officials" so it was executed.
The fan is on medium. Something stinks.

he probably had a motorcycle helmet and fishing vest........so I guess I may be next...I have a "high capicity helmets" cuz I have 3?????

and high capacity vests 2 huniting and 1 fishing.....

and I box of buckshot...IM NEXT!!!!!

Serious question:

I'm not a lawyer but I haven't been able to find any information on the idea that the public cannot boycott certain members of LEO based on their actions. I've found plenty of examples, though, of the NYPD union boycotting the public such as Dunkin Donuts, so I assume the reverse is OK. I don't see any reason examples of boycotts being restricted.

I haven't heard of anyone attempting a boycott of specific police individuals.
I've heard of companies claiming "no police allowed" and being resoundingly crucified in the court of public opinion.