View Full Version : Seizing firearms by using qualified immunity as the tool
This seems plausible.
Basically advocating for circumventing the 2A by lack of criminal AND civil accountability.
https://reason.com/2023/08/02/law-profs-tout-qualified-immunity-for-unconstitutional-gun-restrictions/#:~:text=Under%20current%20qualified%20immunity%20doctrine,be%20allowed%20to%20own%20firearms.
QI should go the Hell away. If someone is in a position to either legally kill you or lock you away for years and they are wrong, they should pay the price. "Mistakes are made" can be easily thrown out there but if it's a non-fixable event (usually involving death) then I have no mercy. Don't like those rules? Don't wear a badge. [I say this with the full knowledge that most of our LEO members don't play that shit, so it's for the "bad apples" or incompetents]
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-09-23, 21:53
The real issue is that especially around gun rights, the courts are an order of magnitude or more slower than the executive and legislative branch. The Courts need to stop this deference to the system of letting cases work their way through and getting pushed up and back, and the en blanc’d. There are cases and areas where this needs to be done as you find consensus. The legislatures, mayors, and gov along with lower courts, are pointedly trying to attack our rights. They aren’t trying to find consensus or figure out the law, they are trying to delay and grab as much of our rights as they can. They need to be not encouraged to do this.
QI should go the Hell away. If someone is in a position to either legally kill you or lock you away for years and they are wrong, they should pay the price. "Mistakes are made" can be easily thrown out there but if it's a non-fixable event (usually involving death) then I have no mercy. Don't like those rules? Don't wear a badge. [I say this with the full knowledge that most of our LEO members don't play that shit, so it's for the "bad apples" or incompetents]
As time progresses, there appear to be fewer good apples than bad.
Here’s something else that needs to go away because it’s been wildly abused by cops everywhere.
DOJ eyeing Americans ‘like ATMs,’ spending over $6 billion to aid civil asset forfeitures
https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-eyeing-americans-like-atms-spending-6-billion-aid-civil-asset-forfeitures-watchdog-says
sidewaysil80
08-10-23, 07:16
I have zero issue with QI considering it has checks and balances. You have to go to court and the it’s decided whether or not to grant it based on the facts of the case. It’s not a guaranteed thing and negligence or nefarious actions aren’t covered. I know there are some examples of that not being the case, but those instances should be indictments of the deciding judge, not the system as a whole.
LE is a shitty, thankless job, were you are literally getting judged and Monday morning quarterbacked by people with little to no actual understanding of the laws/process they’re critiquing. Like I said, I’m fine with a buffer that blocks that crap yet weeds out negligence and bad apples.
To OP’s point. I read the article and still don’t understand what is actually being proposed. Warrantless confiscations?
I have zero issue with QI considering it has checks and balances. You have to go to court and the it’s decided whether or not to grant it based on the facts of the case. It’s not a guaranteed thing and negligence or nefarious actions aren’t covered. I know there are some examples of that not being the case, but those instances should be indictments of the deciding judge, not the system as a whole.
LE is a shitty, thankless job, were you are literally getting judged and Monday morning quarterbacked by people with little to no actual understanding of the laws/process they’re critiquing. Like I said, I’m fine with a buffer that blocks that crap yet weeds out negligence and bad apples.
To OP’s point. I read the article and still don’t understand what is actually being proposed. Warrantless confiscations?
You really need to do a deeper dive into what QI actually is and how it’s applied by the courts. It’s not as simple as you think.
The term you are looking for is “clearly established”.
The problem is that courts have defined “clearly established” in such an unusual way that it is nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers accountable for even the most serious and deliberate violation of constitutional rights. Courts will not impose liability unless virtually identical conduct has been the subject of a past lawsuit and was declared unconstitutional. And since immunity from suit prevents constitutional violations from becoming “clearly established” in the first place, qualified immunity creates a cycle that frustrates the enforcement of constitutional rights.
Averageman
08-10-23, 08:16
Under current qualified immunity doctrine, such disarmaments would enjoy broad protection against monetary liability."
Basically, they propose that police seize guns from whomever their Spidey senses tell them ought not be allowed to own firearms. Those on the receiving end of gun grabs could pursue expensive litigation that might win them back their property but is otherwise unlikely to result in consequences for misbehaving officers, even when the courts conclude that the Second Amendment has been violated.
This sounds a lot like legalized theft. If you're going to steal my property I intend to defend it.
I have zero issue with QI considering it has checks and balances. You have to go to court and the it’s decided whether or not to grant it based on the facts of the case. It’s not a guaranteed thing and negligence or nefarious actions aren’t covered. I know there are some examples of that not being the case, but those instances should be indictments of the deciding judge, not the system as a whole.
LE is a shitty, thankless job, were you are literally getting judged and Monday morning quarterbacked by people with little to no actual understanding of the laws/process they’re critiquing. Like I said, I’m fine with a buffer that blocks that crap yet weeds out negligence and bad apples.
To OP’s point. I read the article and still don’t understand what is actually being proposed. Warrantless confiscations?
QI is frequently made out to be akin to Good Samaritan Laws(ie, avoiding a lawsuit due to breaking ribs while doing the Heimlich on someone.) In practice the person granted QI violated someone's rights, but with some slight twist where the court claims the officer couldn't possibly have known they were violating rights because no other civil rights lawsuit had been allowed to proceed. Basically a self linking ice cream cone.
The article is saying even with courts saying the 2A is a right, officers could still knowingly violate the right and get granted QI on the civil side while also enjoying no Monday morning quartbacking by the Prosecutor on the criminal side. Only people suffering negatives are the gun owner victim and the general public for the civil suit pay out.
Here’s something else that needs to go away because it’s been wildly abused by cops everywhere.
DOJ eyeing Americans ‘like ATMs,’ spending over $6 billion to aid civil asset forfeitures
https://www.foxnews.com/us/doj-eyeing-americans-like-atms-spending-6-billion-aid-civil-asset-forfeitures-watchdog-says
Ahh, the Golden CAF. The LE bureaucrats in my AOR were wailing about the Raskin-Walberg FAIR Act last week. IMO, the FAIR Act probably doesn't even go far enough. :mad:
I have zero issue with QI considering it has checks and balances. You have to go to court and the it’s decided whether or not to grant it based on the facts of the case. It’s not a guaranteed thing and negligence or nefarious actions aren’t covered. I know there are some examples of that not being the case, but those instances should be indictments of the deciding judge, not the system as a whole.
LE is a shitty, thankless job, were you are literally getting judged and Monday morning quarterbacked by people with little to no actual understanding of the laws/process they’re critiquing. Like I said, I’m fine with a buffer that blocks that crap yet weeds out negligence and bad apples.
To OP’s point. I read the article and still don’t understand what is actually being proposed. Warrantless confiscations?
Look at it this way. You buy a new C8 Corvette. It's a car that the federal government has said is lawful to produce and sell in the United States. But your state or local government(s) don't want you possessing a C8 Corvette, because it's too powerful and constitutes a serious threat to public safety. One day you're tooling down the road with a grin on your face and you get pulled over by one of said MMQB'd LEO's. He informs you that you have no business driving a C8 on public roads, impounds it and the government ultimately crushes it. Still grinning?
While you're still making $1,500 a month payments on your now crushed dream car, you have to scrape up the money to sue the LEO and the government. The LEO asserts QI and they're dropped from the suit. While you're trying to get TAXPAYER money out of the government (which is fighting you tooth and nail) to pay for your loss, the MMQB'd LEO is back on the road to confiscate more cars in the name of "public safety".
That's what they're telling government administrators and LE agencies to do with guns. Quite frankly, it's actually been going on since the 70's and 80's. In fact, LE agencies in states like New York, New Jersey and Maryland routinely violate the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, in direct violation of federal law and the Constitution. They don't care what the law says, they just do it and they more often than not get away with it.
In fact, these LEO's, agencies and administrations should be investigated and prosecuted criminally, as an organized crime enterprise. They're no different from the road pirates who go out every day to see what kind of haul they can get under CAF. :mad:
I have zero issue with QI considering it has checks and balances. You have to go to court and the it’s decided whether or not to grant it based on the facts of the case. It’s not a guaranteed thing and negligence or nefarious actions aren’t covered. I know there are some examples of that not being the case, but those instances should be indictments of the deciding judge, not the system as a whole.
LE is a shitty, thankless job, were you are literally getting judged and Monday morning quarterbacked by people with little to no actual understanding of the laws/process they’re critiquing. Like I said, I’m fine with a buffer that blocks that crap yet weeds out negligence and bad apples.
To OP’s point. I read the article and still don’t understand what is actually being proposed. Warrantless confiscations?
No one is arguing the job is hard... but that excuse has permitted malfeasance and the general degradation of our Constitutional rights... QI was cited in the recent 5th Circuit courts decision to back the intentional shooting of a hostage, by the police, in Georgia. QI needs to go if there is to be any positive change in how the government enforces law.
StainlessSteelRat
08-10-23, 11:45
Sounds like a "Grey Flag" way to allow local LE (at the behest of those who sign the paychecks) to arbitrarily decide whether you are worthy of having rights. We all knew the Red Flag shit would devolve into that, right?
Sounds like a "Grey Flag" way to allow local LE (at the behest of those who sign the paychecks) to arbitrarily decide whether you are worthy of having rights. We all knew the Red Flag shit would devolve into that, right?
It was literally designed as a feature, not a bug. :(
Does THEFT get covered under QI? Nope, it sure doesn't. Let us say that Officer Stick is driving down the road looking for a coffee shop with attractive females working inside. When I show up at the shop, I see two people open carrying and know that at least one of the females behind the counter has a pistol as well. Assuming that open carry is legal in the state, how many guns can I grab while inside? The answer is none. Even the super liberal cops I know who go out of their way to get guns out of homes know this.
If I see someone has a giant wad of money, I can't take it. Its theft. The same thing happens with a firearm. Even when we get into BS red laws, there has to be a reason, otherwise its just theft.
Another way to look at it is that a cop is simply a thug shaking people down if they take anything without legal permission. How well has that worked out for cops in the past? Not well.
The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states.
Does THEFT get covered under QI? Nope, it sure doesn't. Let us say that Officer Stick is driving down the road looking for a coffee shop with attractive females working inside. When I show up at the shop, I see two people open carrying and know that at least one of the females behind the counter has a pistol as well. Assuming that open carry is legal in the state, how many guns can I grab while inside? The answer is none. Even the super liberal cops I know who go out of their way to get guns out of homes know this.
If I see someone has a giant wad of money, I can't take it. Its theft. The same thing happens with a firearm. Even when we get into BS red laws, there has to be a reason, otherwise its just theft.
Another way to look at it is that a cop is simply a thug shaking people down if they take anything without legal permission. How well has that worked out for cops in the past? Not well.
I think the point is that in jurisdictions that slant heavily Left with cops who probably do also, if your guns are "confiscated" unlawfully (or I should say unconstitutionally) then this QI will remove one more avenue of recourse you have. You may get your guns back....maybe....if you have the scratch to fight it. I think they hope people will say "Fvck it" and give up that fight.
While QI gets abused and used by some LEOs, I'm not inherently against it, I'm more concerned with what seems total immunity enjoyed by DAs, prosecutors and judges.
Does THEFT get covered under QI? Nope, it sure doesn't. Let us say that Officer Stick is driving down the road looking for a coffee shop with attractive females working inside. When I show up at the shop, I see two people open carrying and know that at least one of the females behind the counter has a pistol as well. Assuming that open carry is legal in the state, how many guns can I grab while inside? The answer is none. Even the super liberal cops I know who go out of their way to get guns out of homes know this.
If I see someone has a giant wad of money, I can't take it. Its theft. The same thing happens with a firearm. Even when we get into BS red laws, there has to be a reason, otherwise its just theft.
Another way to look at it is that a cop is simply a thug shaking people down if they take anything without legal permission. How well has that worked out for cops in the past? Not well.
Fresno police stole $225k and were granted QI.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/05/13/should-cops-accused-of-stealing-over-225000-have-legal-immunity-supreme-court-urged-to-hear-case/
While QI gets abused and used by some LEOs, I'm not inherently against it, I'm more concerned with what seems total immunity enjoyed by DAs, prosecutors and judges.
Who benefits from LE not being held accountable via QI in a civil suit when they violate someone's rights?
I tend to think the total immunity of judges and prosecutors is just the other side of the coin to QI for cops with both wrongs feeding and perpetuating the other.
Let's not forget this juicy little nugget. :rolleyes:
https://reason.com/2022/09/30/federal-judge-decides-safe-deposit-boxes-arent-safe-from-fbi/
I think the point is that in jurisdictions that slant heavily Left with cops who probably do also, if your guns are "confiscated" unlawfully (or I should say unconstitutionally) then this QI will remove one more avenue of recourse you have. You may get your guns back....maybe....if you have the scratch to fight it. I think they hope people will say "Fvck it" and give up that fight.
Getting the guns back would be another problem on top of the LE not being held accountable on the criminal side of things and QI preventing the LE being sued on the civil side.
Who benefits from LE not being held accountable via QI in a civil suit when they violate someone's rights?
I tend to think the total immunity of judges and prosecutors is just the other side of the coin to QI for cops with both wrongs feeding and perpetuating the other.
QI does not protect them from violating Const Rights, at least not officially. Does it happen? Of course.
QI does not protect them from violating Const Rights, at least not officially. Does it happen? Of course.
Actually, QI does protect officers who have violated rights.
https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/frequently-asked-questions-about-ending-qualified-immunity/
"Importantly, when courts grant government workers qualified immunity, they do so despite the fact that the government worker has violated the Constitution or they simply do not address that issue at all."
sidewaysil80
08-10-23, 17:09
https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIXQualifiedImmunity.pdf
Interesting read/discussion on the topic.
https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIXQualifiedImmunity.pdf
Interesting read/discussion on the topic.
And we have a supreme Court decision indicating a reasonable officer wouldn't have been aware that stealing $225k was a rights violation. That seems more than just a bit unreasonable.
sidewaysil80
08-10-23, 17:27
And we have a supreme Court decision indicating a reasonable officer wouldn't have been aware that stealing $225k was a rights violation. That seems more than just a bit unreasonable.
Completely ridiculous ruling but par for the course from ninth circuit. Why, specifically, didn’t SCOTUS take up the case?
My answer to the "Justice System" :lol: Yeah, I have l-o-n-g since given up on the infallibility of the "justice system". Sure, they get it right 90%+ of the time but damn, when it's one of those ~10% they sure fvck it up royally. Nine esteemed lawyers dressed in black robes, whether they rule to uphold something I may want or not, do not deliver a message from God on high. Their predecessors once ruled slavery was legal, and while that has long since fallen out of favor (and for good reason), what future ruling will they make that would ultimately turn out to be unconstitutional?
Completely ridiculous ruling but par for the course from ninth circuit. Why, specifically, didn’t SCOTUS take up the case?
Because "fewer than four justices determined that the circumstances of the decision of the lower court warrant a review by the Supreme Court."
certiorari | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/certiorari#:~:text=A%20decision%20to%20deny%20certiorari,review%20by%20the%20Supreme%20Court.
Here's a QI grant from the 11th circuit where an LE shot a 10 year child proned out while trying to shoot a dog that wasn't a threat either.
https://www.cato.org/blog/eleventh-circuit-grants-immunity-officer-who-shot-child-lying-ground
Should work on this one too.
https://youtu.be/xLUWYvoAdVs
It seems that using “constitutional laws” like this is essentially government using the constitution to protect itself from a higher level of Government in order to avoid accountability for Government actions against the people the constitution is actually meant to protect from Government actions in the first place...
Here's a QI grant from the 11th circuit where an LE shot a 10 year child proned out while trying to shoot a dog that wasn't a threat either.
https://www.cato.org/blog/eleventh-circuit-grants-immunity-officer-who-shot-child-lying-ground
Should work on this one too.
https://youtu.be/xLUWYvoAdVs
It does seem they are basically held to the same standard as the Special Olympics. As long as they try their best, that's all that matters...
If this was Joe average he’d of been in jail immediately.
My answer to the "Justice System" :lol: Yeah, I have l-o-n-g since given up on the infallibility of the "justice system". Sure, they get it right 90%+ of the time but damn, when it's one of those ~10% they sure fvck it up royally. Nine esteemed lawyers dressed in black robes, whether they rule to uphold something I may want or not, do not deliver a message from God on high. Their predecessors once ruled slavery was legal, and while that has long since fallen out of favor (and for good reason), what future ruling will they make that would ultimately turn out to be unconstitutional?
Yep, we have a legal system, NOT a "justice" system. Anyone who tells me different is just another liar for the system.
It seems that using “constitutional laws” like this is essentially government using the constitution to protect itself from a higher level of Government in order to avoid accountability for Government actions against the people the constitution is actually meant to protect from Government actions in the first place...
That's exactly what it is. If you think the system is designed to protect people, just mention jury nullification in a courtroom and see what happens to you.
Averageman
08-11-23, 11:09
Here's a QI grant from the 11th circuit where an LE shot a 10 year child proned out while trying to shoot a dog that wasn't a threat either.
https://www.cato.org/blog/eleventh-circuit-grants-immunity-officer-who-shot-child-lying-ground
Should work on this one too.
https://youtu.be/xLUWYvoAdVs
I think a lot of people think that since they don't do bad things, bad things can't happen to them. So when something like this happens they can't even conceptualize what the facts are.
Once you lose your Humanity, how can you still have Authority?
That's exactly what it is. If you think the system is designed to protect people, just mention jury nullification in a courtroom and see what happens to you.
Juries are an interesting subject to me. I’ll probably never serve on one because I spent about a decade as a city cop. But I often wonder how I’d act on one if I ever did serve.
When I entered LE in early 2000 was still very much a law and order Republican type, when I left I was a hardcore super libertarian. So much so I feel all drugs should be legal and crew served artillery should be sold in the lawn and garden section of Walmart right next to the home marijuana grow starter kits.
I’d be a prosecutors nightmare on a state jury and if I ever ended up on a federal jury they better have Jesus Christ himself as their star witness.
Juries are an interesting subject to me. I’ll probably never serve on one because I spent about a decade as a city cop. But I often wonder how I’d act on one if I ever did serve.
When I entered LE in early 2000 was still very much a law and order Republican type, when I left I was a hardcore super libertarian. So much so I feel all drugs should be legal and crew served artillery should be sold in the lawn and garden section of Walmart right next to the home marijuana grow starter kits.
I’d be a prosecutors nightmare on a state jury and if I ever ended up on a federal jury they better have Jesus Christ himself as their star witness.
I'm of very similar circumstances and beliefs. No prosecutor worth his salt would ever allow me onto a jury, as I don't view "The State" as a viable victim in a victimless crime. If a defendant is guilty of a written law, but the law itself is either unconstitutional, immoral, or not accurately applicable due to specific circumstances, there's no way I'm gonna vote to convict.
The older I get, the more I agree with Dre...
#defund
Diamondback
08-11-23, 18:44
The difference between the current Regimes (at both Fed/State level) and a Mafia crime family is at least the latter's 1. honest about what it is and 2. plays by some rules that if you can figure 'em out you can figure out how to work around 'em.
#DonCorleoneForPresident
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.