'Time for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and right this dangerously tilted ship before it capsizes' Guns belonging to a California woman that were seized without a warrant several years ago must be returned, contends a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Second Amendment Foundation. The organization is seeking review of the case involving the city of San Jose and its police department. In 2013, police seized all the weapons from a home where a man had lived before he was taken to a hospital with a mental health issue. They included firearms belonging to the man's wife, Lori Rodriguez, which were locked in an approved gun safe. The city simply kept the guns. The foundation is joined by the California Gun Rights Foundation in the case. It began when a San Jose police officer advised Rodriguez he had authority to seized all firearms in the residence, including those belonging solely to her. She objected, pointing out the officer had no warrant. For seven years the case has been in the lower courts. And even though the judges quickly concluded Rodriguez had done nothing wrong and was allowed to buy new weapons, police kept her old ones. The most recent action was a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the police department's seizure. "This case is a travesty," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of SAF. "Lori Rodriguez is not a criminal, nor is she prohibited by law from owning firearms. Yet she's essentially been robbed by the city of San Jose and its police department, with the cooperation of lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals," he said. "When a municipal government agency can seize property without a warrant, and be protected by the lower courts in so doing, it is time for the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and right this dangerously tilted ship before it capsizes." Don Kilmer, a civil rights lawyer working on the case, said Rodriguez "has at all times complied with California’s many gun control laws, including those requiring locked storage." "But the city of San Jose outrageously continues to refuse to return the constitutionally protected property they unlawfully took from her." He said governments "have no reason and no right to take guns from law-abiding people who are legally eligible to keep and bear arms, full stop." "The Constitution does not have a 'gun' exception to fundamental Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, but that is exactly what the Ninth Circuit's dangerous decision means. We hope the Supreme Court will vindicate our clients' rights and restore the rule of law in the Ninth Circuit." https://www.wnd.com/2020/03/7-years...ng&utm_campaign=breaking&utm_content=breaking It's the principle of the thing, that police can just come into your home, take your property, and then never give it back. Why do I not find this the least bit surprising. This is the same Ninth Circuit that upholds all sorts of ridiculous rights for other people and other groups. Yet when it comes to a gun owner, they're out of luck.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns San Jose long ago disposed of the firearms and is hoping she will eventually give up trying to get them back so they can avoid any liability to having disposed them. I would petition the court to require San Jose to show the guns are still in their custody in the condition the were when confiscated. If the owner has since passed, likely ownership or all the guns would have passed to the wife.
This is prior to all those 'red flag' laws, and she received no due process. Image the nightmare facing American citizens when due process isn't even required. This needs to be addressed immediately...
This is -exactly- the sort of thing the anti-gun left will do to as many people as possible, if they ever get the chance.
While I believe liberals will take any opportunity to erode civil rights that impede the ultimate goal for a leftist collectivist style of socialism directed by an elitist few, after have worked as a management consultant in local government for over 40 years, I would place a bet on this instance being a product of incompetence in handing the confiscated collection, perhaps covering for the weapons having already been destroyed, disposed at auction. Worse than any money involved (including the court costs), or returning the weapons under court order, is a public admission of incompetence. If the weapons were disposed, the potential liability is likely to exceed the costs to fight to deny returning the gun to her. Someone of power is defending that power. As I previously suggested, were I her attorney, I would petition the court to force the city to produce evidence that the collection still exists in their custody; her legal team may be fighting the wrong battle.
One of the issues with many red flag laws aside from denial of due process is that there are no provisions for how custody of property is managed, maintained, and returned nor sanctions if confiscated private property under government custody is lost or damaged.
While I understand what you mean, knowing that this took place in the Bay Area in California, I would place an equally large bet that they disposed of her property knowing that they were never planning on giving it back. What I mean is I suspect this was strongly intentional. Let me first say that one of the frustrating faults I find with the majority of conservatives is they over-assume how obvious their beliefs are and drastically underestimate the insanity on the other side. This is the reason they are often blind-sided and can't see new attacks coming. Because when something like this happens, they inherently assume that would be pure craziness, no group of reasonable people could ever support those type of actions in that situation, and so it must be some unintentional accident or one in a million rare anomaly. Meanwhile, people's rights are being chiseled away, and many people like you seem incapable of seeing it. If you want to be able to see crazy coming on the horizon, you got to be able to know and understand the crazy.
You mean the government doesn't hold itself accountable? Surely you jest... They prolly sold the guns to gangs.
One thing about California is their handling of firearms in custody. They don't sell/repurpose them. If the firearm in question is slated for destruction, the paperwork and process is an excruciating ordeal. If these firearms are still being "adjudicated", their status would be known and verified. If they weren't, Lori R. has a really, really bad lawyer.
I don’t know the CA law regarding handling firearms in police custody. But, I would agree regarding her Lawyer if their status remains unknown. Having worked with local government as long as I have, I have noticed many will not fight in courts that hard when they weight the costs against a settlement as they will to cover incompetence.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the 9th Circuit Court have a Republican majority? "A 9th Circuit panel of four Democratic appointees and seven Republican appointees"
