[Jpyle]

Gotta admit that I am somewhere in between on this as well. If the state initiated this without probable cause then I would agree it is a violation of the man's rights, what business is it of theirs how many guns he buys as long as everything is done legally?

What's problematic for me is the fact that they knew he was on administrative leave which leads me to believe that a prior contact with law enforcement had occurred and that somehow prompted their intervention after the NICS process. Or perhaps he bragged about his purchases to a coworker and someone was concerned given the circumstances.

I have no problem with law enforcement being aggressive in preventing criminal acts but the Libertarian in me wants to keep a close eye and a tight leash on them while they do it.

[doctherock]

Originally Posted by Jpyle

Gotta admit that I am somewhere in between on this as well. If the state initiated this without probable cause then I would agree it is a violation of the man's rights, what business is it of theirs how many guns he buys as long as everything is done legally?

What's problematic for me is the fact that they knew he was on administrative leave which leads me to believe that a prior contact with law enforcement had occurred and that somehow prompted their intervention after the NICS process. Or perhaps he bragged about his purchases to a coworker and someone was concerned given the circumstances.

I have no problem with law enforcement being aggressive in preventing criminal acts but the Libertarian in me wants to keep a close eye and a tight leash on them while they do it.

agree with you

[Agent_H]

Originally Posted by doctherock

here in oregon they can put you on administrative leave for farting sideways and pissing off a co-worker with the stink. I had a buddy put on admin leave for saying a students mom was pretty.

Yeah. Teachers certainly can get put on leave for accusations in a hearbeat. Some students' moms are pretty though... shame.

[Highpower]

Originally Posted by TheGunLady

What'd he buy, and did he get a good deal? Did he have buyers lined up? Gun trading can be an excellent income supplement plan (as most of us here well know).

I did not see any mention of this particular individual applying for an 01 Federal Firearms (Dealer) License in this story. So what is it exactly that you are implying here?

[Dzscubie]

Guys,

All I'm saying is we can't make broad statements like the original OP did about how Government went overboard and violated this guy’s rights and get all worked up about it like this guy was a normal Joe worker without all the FACTS of the situation. The article is very broad and does not show a complete picture of what happened. Some of the things I would like to know before I decided how bad this guy was treated and are not given in the article are:

• What is his history? Has he had problems or been violent or threatening before?
• Has he had encounters with the police before as an EDP (emotionally disturbed person) before?
• How did the police find he had bought the guns? Did someone report it, gun dealer, co-worker, family?
• He was not arrested (article states this) but held for mental (can’t spell the phyco word) evaluation… why? What did he do to merit this? Police can’t just dump someone in the hospital for an evaluation without some grounds of justification, I would like to know what that was.

So I hope you can see where I’m going with this, I just want the whole story before I call for a lynching. After all we all know that you can’t just take for gospel what you read or see in the media.

[Dillinger]

I can't believe this thread is still nuclear.

I am siding with Scubie here. The whole story has not come out yet.

Facts being facts, the cops don't show up on your door and put you in a state run psychological testing camp because you "farted sideways and offended a co-worker".

We don't have all the facts. Period.

ASSUMING that the cops merely did this because they had little else on their plate and were just looking to impede a persons' rights is foolish.

Fact: The guy was on administrative leave and we don't know why

Fact: The guy bought a couple of high dollar weapons, in a two-day/three-day period, while on administrative leave.

Fact: Someone reported this and was concerned.

The cops could have chosen to ignore it.

Extrapolate this out to the worst possible scenario.

How many of you are going to be posting that you have NO IDEA what the LEO's were thinking when confronted with an obvious problem situation and they did not act. Now "X" people are dead or in intensive care.

Wait for the FULL STORY before we get the gang together and get some rope.

Cool?

[Gatekeeper]

Cool D........This could be a great success story of police preventing a tragedy or a terrible violation of someones rights.
Too early to tell, we need the facts.
Until then..........

[Dillinger]

All I am saying is that IF it was a violation of this individuals rights, he is probably NEVER going to have to work again.

But IF the police involvement just saved some lives of people in a work place shooting, then this intervention is in ALL of our interests as LAWFUL gun owners....

JD

[Dzscubie]

Originally Posted by Dillinger

All I am saying is that IF it was a violation of this individuals rights, he is probably NEVER going to have to work again.

But IF the police involvement just saved some lives of people in a work place shooting, then this intervention is in ALL of our interests as LAWFUL gun owners....

JD

+1 Thanks JD exactly what I was trying to say.

[gorknoids]

But one of them is a "universal self-loading" handgun!

I support having him checked out, based on the information in the article. There may be facts that weren't printed because if they become public, they could guarantee a mistrial, should this go to court.