PDA

View Full Version : Rhein v. Pryor: Speaking freely resulted in RKBA litigation


Tarn_Helm
03-25-2014, 5:59 AM
Is it possible to lose--even temporarily--your Second Amendment rights (and others) by exercising your First Amendment right to discuss your Second Amendment rights?

Apparently: Rhein et al v. Pryor et al (http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2013cv00843/279634/43)

The case is discussed here: "Free speech, right to bear arms, search and seizure, and due process claims based on gun seizure can go forward (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/free-speech-right-to-bear-arms-search-and-seizure-and-due-process-claims-based-on-gun-seizure-can-go-forward/)."

When you have to litigate the exercise of your rights in order to exercise them (or when you exercise them), do you really have those rights?

Litigation wastes time.

I am a finite being.

The time I lose litigating is time I can never recover.

The illegal taking of my unrecoverable time does me irreparable harm.

Moreover, individuals also have to pay for legal representation to carry out the litigation.

This expenditure is also rarely if ever recovered from the person(s) or agency that took our freedom(s).

Anyone else bothered by the fact that courts--judges and lawyers--seem to think that litigation is a suitable temporary substitute for freedom?

This case raises a specific problem that exemplifies a general problem.

Specific: The "authorities" can deem you crazy/threatening and on that basis take away your rights (albeit temporarily).

General: Even though the authorities are wrong, you still pay--literally--for their oppression and mistakes.

:taz:
:beatdeadhorse5:
:cuss:
:rant:

Tincon
03-25-2014, 6:11 AM
I wonder how many people will chime in about how bad and shocking this is, even though the case does no such thing.

The title of the article you linked to might give some indication, "Free speech, right to bear arms, search and seizure, and due process claims based on gun seizure can go forward." Those last two words are key. The facial challenge had some real issues (as many do), but the court allowed the claims based on the actual rights violations to go forward.

Your thread title is wrong and misleading (at best).

Mayor McRifle
03-25-2014, 6:16 AM
I wonder how many people will chime in about how bad and shocking this is, even though the case does no such thing.

The title of the article you linked to might give some indication, "Free speech, right to bear arms, search and seizure, and due process claims based on gun seizure can go forward." Those last two words are key. The facial challenge had some real issues (as many do), but the court allowed the claims based on the actual rights violations to go forward.

Your thread title is wrong and misleading (at best).

Agreed. A more accurate thread title would be: "The First Amendment Killed The Gun Grab Attempt." (At least so far.)

Tarn_Helm
03-25-2014, 6:59 AM
I wonder how many people will chime in about how bad and shocking this is, even though the case does no such thing.

The title of the article you linked to might give some indication, "Free speech, right to bear arms, search and seizure, and due process claims based on gun seizure can go forward." Those last two words are key. The facial challenge had some real issues (as many do), but the court allowed the claims based on the actual rights violations to go forward.

Your thread title is wrong and misleading (at best).

A bit of an exaggeration, but I amended it nonetheless.

Agreed. A more accurate thread title would be: "The First Amendment Killed The Gun Grab Attempt." (At least so far.)

A more accurate thread title is the one I have changed it to now.

Review the revision.

It would be more useful if the subsequent comments focus on the matters at issue in the case instead of hypercriticizing the thread title.
:facepalm:

It is not difficult to foresee this sort of thing happening here in California.
:taz:
:beatdeadhorse5:
:cuss:
:rant:

Tincon
03-25-2014, 7:12 AM
He didn't lose his rights, he had them violated by a rogue cop (or cops). The court ordered his firearms returned and that the civil case against said cop(s) go forward. The system actually worked as it is supposed to (for once).

It would be more useful if the subsequent threads accurately describe the events and issues rather than being inaccurately sensationalistic.


It is not difficult to foresee this sort of thing happening here in California.


I can tell you for a fact that it has happened (to me, for one).

hoystory
03-25-2014, 11:08 AM
Didn't see this posted. Happened in Illinois, but I wouldn't be surprised if it spread.

Free speech, right to bear arms, search and seizure, and due process claims based on gun seizure can go forward (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/free-speech-right-to-bear-arms-search-and-seizure-and-due-process-claims-based-on-gun-seizure-can-go-forward/)

ElvenSoul
03-25-2014, 11:22 AM
My question is did he recieve notice prior to the confiscation that he was now determined mentally unfit?

If so why no proactive response? You do not wait for them to come take your guns.
You get a notice saying you are not mentally fit. You better drop everything and go see a psychiatrist to get a second opinion. Then go before a judge!

hoystory
03-25-2014, 11:53 AM
My question is did he recieve notice prior to the confiscation that he was now determined mentally unfit?

If so why no proactive response? You do not wait for them to come take your guns.
You get a notice saying you are not mentally fit. You better drop everything and go see a psychiatrist to get a second opinion. Then go before a judge!

Did you read the article? The sheriff mailed the letter one day and showed up the next. The post office delivered the letter two days after the sheriff had already taken the person's guns.

There was no due process in declaring him "mentally unfit." An elected official didn't like that he was a 2nd Amendment advocate and his 2nd Amendment advocacy was the only evidence presented to a law enforcement officer that he was nuts. No judge. No psychiatric screening.

Librarian
03-25-2014, 11:55 AM
Since this is still in the IL court system, moved to National.

Tarn_Helm
03-25-2014, 4:18 PM
He didn't lose his rights, he had them violated by a rogue cop (or cops). The court ordered his firearms returned and that the civil case against said cop(s) go forward. The system actually worked as it is supposed to (for once).

It would be more useful if the subsequent threads accurately describe the events and issues rather than being inaccurately sensationalistic.

I can tell you for a fact that it has happened (to me, for one).

If it has happened to you, especially in CA, then it is not "sensationalistic."
:facepalm:

Look up the word "sensationalistic" before you use it if you're unclear on the concept.

And try to comment on the aspects of the case that are relevant to a broad spectrum of forum participants instead of uselessly and endlessly nitpicking the thread title or other trivia to death.
:facepalm: