1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

OR Gun Owner OUTRAGE

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by Rich's Mom, Jun 19, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Rich's Mom

    Rich's Mom TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    24
    Will this become more commonplace in the near future?

    http://oregonfirearms.org/alertspage/Outrage.html


    Laurie
     
  2. Shooting Jack

    Shooting Jack Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    3,523
    Location:
    Blackshear, Georgia
    That might make it easier.
     
  3. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Even easier....

    OUTRAGE

    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 of 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." Adding insult to injury, The Medford Mail Tribune, best know for its efforts to acquire the names and personal information of area gun owners, has published an editorial praising the actions of the police.

    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<br>
    c/o the "David Pyles Legal Defense Fund"<br>
    P.O. Box 728<br>
    Medford, OR 97501<br>


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

    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.
     
  4. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    One of the most frightening things I have ever read.
     
  5. black_wal_nut

    black_wal_nut TS Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2010
    Messages:
    132
    wow, i live in grants pass, 45 minutes from his house, and i had no idea...

    steven
     
  6. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    And the State Police want to increase background check fees by 300%. The money generated will be a 1/3 of their entire operating budget for the entire agency.

    Perhaps with idiotic rights bashing crap like this, they need the money to fund lawyers and pay for lawsuit judgments.

    On top of that, the Oregon State Police have a history of making up laws as they go. They had an ad hoc gun registry in place since they started doing NICS checks. It's legal now, thanks to John McCain, who came here to help push through the Gunshow Loophole Law, which was a vehicle to make this unauthorized by law registry legal. (It's no wonder a lot of pro-gunners in Oregon voted third party when McCain ran for president.)
     
  7. Model Number 12

    Model Number 12 TS Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2008
    Messages:
    622
    Brian, please keep us informed on this. This should scare every shooter and citizen.
     
  8. shot410ga

    shot410ga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,760
    What did this guy do to be sent home to work? A lot of unanswered questions here. Maybe his coworkers (family, friends?) though he was a nut all along Most of the wacko's that shoot up the place and kill a bunch of people have never done anything to justify taking their guns away before the massacre. Maybe this was a temporary preventative measure to control a potential wacko, before he want more wacko. Like I said, we don't know all the information.
     
  9. SonoraMike

    SonoraMike TS Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    127
    I have no dog in this fight - with that said it appears that the man was considered unstable (doesn't say by whom) and was in conflict with a supervisor at work. guns in question were an ak-47 and a 12ga shotgun which were returned to him a few days later. apparently the issue surrounded work safety
     
  10. Rimfirejim

    Rimfirejim TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    200
    Brian please seek professional help(before They get you).heh! heh!
     
  11. recurvyarcher

    recurvyarcher Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,450
    I donated to his defense fund. I think you would want the same if you were in his shoes. If he were unstable, then he would not have been let go as soon as they let him go. Also, there was no need for a swat team to take him in the middle of the night. They could have sent over some plain clothesmen and a psychiatrist, and it would have cost the citizens a lot less, and not been so intrusive.
     
  12. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    shot410ga, quote: <i>"What did this guy do to be sent home to work? A lot of unanswered questions here. Maybe his coworkers (family, friends?) though he was a nut all along Most of the wacko's that shoot up the place and kill a bunch of people have never done anything to justify taking their guns away before the massacre. Maybe this was a temporary preventative measure to control a potential wacko, before he want more wacko. Like I said, we don't know all the information."</i>

    What we do know is that there was no due process of law.

    That's a very critical point.

    If he had threatened other workers, then there should be a police report noting the threat, which could have resulted in a warrant and charges.

    If he had been acting like a lunatic, there still should have been a warrant to have him committed.

    While no one wants to see nuts shoot up the town and kill people, innuendo and hunches are not good enough. A legal process must be in place and it must be followed. Due process of law.

    Because there was no due process of law, this strongly suggests they were on shaky grounds in the first place. But, their use of intimidation coerced him into VOLUNTARILY giving himself over for observation. He may not have legal grounds for recourse because of that aspect.

    I am not suggesting that he should have defied them. Who knows what might have happened? (Myself, I would have told them to present a warrant or leave me alone, but that's me. I'm not suggesting others do that.)
     
  13. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    doggai, quote: <i>"The two wingnut lunatics that shot up the Columbine school or the wacko that shot up the Virginia college had no due process of law, either. For that matter, none of their dead student victims had due process of law. Oh, I get it, fear of the same behavior on the part of David Pyles should not be entered into the equation. Let him wipe out parts of several or many families, then we deny any of us knew him and forget to rant about his rights. Ostriches, I guess, are not an endangered species. JF"</i>

    Please stop the hysterics and lack of rational thinking.

    First, lack of due process of law is found in a form of government that few citizens would honestly welcome. We've had more than enough examples of what happens when laws are blatantly waived or ignored in this country. And we've seen what happens in other countries when there is no due process of law. Frankly it is an affront to those who fought and died to create this country, and those who to continue to defend it, to even suggest we scrap due process of law.

    Second, David Pyles was rousted out of bed, and I quote, by his "telephone ringing in the middle of the night". That should have been a clue right there that this was NOT an emergency situation, where the police are given the benefit of the doubt to act outside of due process. The "evidence" against Mr. Pyles was collected over a longer period of time. Meaning there was plenty of time for due process to work, and by that, I mean to swear before a judge that there is enough evidence to support a warrant to take him into custody.

    No one is suggesting that the "warning signs" be ignored. Only that due process of law be followed. We are a nation built upon the concept of law. You better pray that never ceases to be our core principle.
     
  14. noknock1

    noknock1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Stranger in a Strange Land
    This situation doesn't at glance "feel right." However, with that being said, I know that sometimes law enforcement does not have plenty of time for due process.

    The other side of this situation could be, and no I am not there and am not privy to inside details (just like everyone else on this site) could be that law enforcement was not notified until a few hours before they converged on the house. It is possible and even probable that law enforcement was notified by someone that he purchased the firearms because he told someone and it ended up back with management, etc...

    Regardless, we should not assume that law enforcement was planning to seize guns by using a loop hole in the law.

    There is a good chance that law enforcement received a phone call that said: “so and so bought however many guns in the past week and he is pissed at his boss and is on administrative leave. I think he may go postal...”

    Well what is the police department suppose to do with that? They call the boss and verify that yes the guy is on admin leave because of a dispute with his boss.

    What kind of dispute? Did he say something stupid in the presence of witnesses that threatened violence? Why exactly was he suspended? I know where I work, people have disputes with bosses all the time and they file grievances or get an attorney, etc, but they are not suspended!
    I just would like to know some more facts as to exactly what lead up to law enforcement getting involved.

    Who said what? Who accused the guy of what? When was law enforcement notified to the time they felt as though they needed to act for public safety?
    GOD knows there have been plenty of work place shootings across the nation over the past couple decades...

    Who wants to be the detective or police chief that received information that a guy is acting like a nut (according to management and who knows who else called) and just bought a bunch of firearms AFTER he was suspended from his employment and to not act on it?

    If the guy did go psycho, there are many on this site who would want the entire police department fired and imprisoned for dereliction of duty for an obvious avoidably situation as all the clues were right there in front of them!
    I am just saying I want to know more facts...

    If it turns out that the police were in on this malicious plan for weeks or months and failed to get a warrant signed by an impartial judge, then yes, they need to face the legal consequences for violating this guys civil rights.

    If it turns out that management and/or co-workers libeled this guy, then yes I hope he wins the civil suit and owns them for the rest of their natural lives on this planet….

    But before we crucify law enforcement on this forum, let’s get all the facts….

    There are a bunch of reasonable people that would look twice at an individual if notified that he is postal AND purchased a bunch of guns AFTER was suspended from work…..
     
  15. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    TIMELINE, people. The raid was in the middle of the night. There is no excuse for not following due process. They had ample time to get a warrant.

    It's also possible they did NOT have suitable enough evidence to get a warrant. That would mean they acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and flagrantly in violation of his due process rights.

    The police, in a society based upon law, do not get to chose which laws to obey and which ones to ignore, suspend or break. They must adhere to the rule of law, or we have a police state. Some of you really need to contemplate the ramifications of that. Especially where Second Amendment rights are concerned. We've already seen numerous cases over the years where the police routinely decided to deny due process to gun owners. Such as deciding that the best way to prevent concealed handgun carry is to simply not furnish application forms.

    <i>Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</i><br>
    - Benjamin Franklin
     
  16. DickG

    DickG TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    78
    What noknock1 said
     
  17. j2jake

    j2jake Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,284
    noknock1 are you not makeing a case for "due process"? Jake
     
  18. shot410ga

    shot410ga Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,760
    Brian: Sometimes it's better to act than to react after the event.
     
  19. larryjk

    larryjk Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    519
    Brian, I have been known to disagree with you on occasion,but you are 100% right on this. Unless the fellow is shouting threats, there should have been a legal warrant signed by a judge. I doubt if that could have been obtained in this case.
    The question I always have when I see the pictures of the guys in black is this, "If what they are doing is legal, why do they cover their faces to hide their identity?" What other reason is there for that?
     
  20. JohnBT

    JohnBT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    182
    "Let's give the employer some credit for getting the whackjob out of the office or warehouse and eliminating the danger to the other employees. "

    The way I heard it:

    The guy's manager had a bunch of grievances filed against him along with ongoing work-related problems with many other employees. Before the 'confrontation' with the gentleman under discussion, this manager had already asked for bullet proof glass for his office due to the other employees and their complaints about him. He had reported the other employees already and was afraid.

    The police fell for it, hook line & sinker.

    There was no due process. None. He wasn't threatening anyone, he was at home and probably in bed asleep. Dang, that's a dangerous man there.

    Now, if he presses the issue, the taxpayers will pick up the bill for the cops' foolishness.

    John
    NRA Patron
    Member www.vcdl.org
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.