On what grounds are they forcing the sale of his guns, if the waitress was mistaken in what she heard?
Don’t know, the report is “sealed”.
The future does not look hopeful with these laws in place.
Why the waitress is not under investigation?
Is she a hero now?
The by play aside, I’m thinking Mr. Nichols is surrendering his weapons as tools he no longer needs.
Add that he really needs (and appreciates) the opportunity to be of service, out in the community, where he can enjoy the experience of caring for the children who cross the street at his guard station. (Rather than becoming isolated from life because of reduced opportunities.)
Since the “Authorities” originally ‘allowed’ the weapons to be turned over to a family member, who is a local FFL/Dealer, Mr. Nichols is likely to get a fair deal for the value of said weapons. While it’s a result someone in the middle of their life could find onerous, for a soul closer to the end of his days, it might be the best result. Certainly/Possibly? better than having the equipment sit only to become part of his estate after his passing.
From what information that is not sealed Mr. Nichols seems like one of the good guys, Military, LEO, and now a crossing guard. I guess I just don’t see how someone could be trusted with the care of children and not a firearm? I would much rather give directions in my will for the disposition of the firearms in my estate than be without them as an elderly person who may not have the physical abilities of a younger attacker.
As a side note, has anyone looked into the Resource Officer who Mr. Nichols was originally concerned about? They have this new invention called a “Thermos” that would allow him to have his coffee and remain at his post.
I wouldn’t be happy not having my guns at home, even they are not in use anymore. Whatever value it has, it’s mine.
It sad that had to give up a tool which accompanied him whole life.
Anyway this is weird … “misheard words”, “non existing threat”… all this is BS…
We all see it’s a very slippery slope from the Wayne La Pierre offering up and giving that sacrificial pound of flesh with his BumpStocks to appease liberal loons
but we collectively have to take this to the N’th degree because you know the story give an inch take a yard. My suggestions are when you are out in public do as I do don’t talk about guns, firearms, anything that could be construed as talking about firearms, military, explosives, or a threat to anyone anywhere. Because people are very nosy and love to be in other people’s business. Mr Stephen Nichols whatever is a proud Korean War veteran and at his stage of life probably has lost his Second Amendment Rights forever. Again; our president opened that barn door although I don’t think he realized repercussions of the power of words a year and change into the future on this matter. I think he gets it now. Choose words wisely and always assume someone is listening.
I have to think Mr. Nichols is offering an accommodation. He may not see better options, and that would depend on if his family relations are giving good advice. I can see both options. Oh, and I totally agree the whole set up seemed awful fishy.
Our Founding Fathers wrote into our Constitution protections from this type of behavior because of the way they were treated as citizens of the Crown, a whispered word in the ear of a British officer, saying your being seditious or unloyal, would guarantee a squad of soldiers would be breaking down your door and searching your home and even if nothing was found you would still be arrested, just because of a whispered word. Does this sound familiar? it should, this current crop of “Red Flag Laws” is akin to that whispered word in the officers ear.
When the Red Flag laws are proposed they state that there will be consequences for making false charges. That people wrongly accused will get their property returned… etc.
Now look at what really happened. A waitress makes a false charge and is off scott free. A good man has had his guns taken. The whole world now knows that the elderly Mr. Nichols is living alone and un-armed. That the school resource officer leaves for long coffee breaks.
Who is safer because of this Red Flag law?
How can this happen? Isn’t this a violation of the 14th amendment?
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I suspect there will be not penalty for falsely red flagging someone. Don’t want to inhibit people from reporting on their comrades, oops, I mean neighbors.
Red flag laws are a direct violation of the Constitution and we should fight them at the ballot box, and notify our congress critters.
How can you penalize someone for what they “could” or “might” do?
" Blackstone’s Ratio or Blackstone’s Formulation
Main article: Blackstone’s Ratio
Among the most well-known of Blackstone’s contributions to judicial theory is his own statement of the principle that it “is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”.
While this argument originates at least as far back as Genesis 18:23–32 in the Bible, as well as versions by Maimonides and Sir John Fortescue, Blackstone’s analysis is the one picked up by Benjamin Franklin and others, so that the term has become known as “Blackstone’s Ratio”.
“ It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished… when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, ‘it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.’ And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever. ”
Blackstone’s Ratio is a maxim of English law, having been established as such within a few decades of Blackstone’s work being published. It is also cited in courts and law in the US, and is strongly emphasised to American law students."
21 Century’s World is blind and deaf…
I dove into this debate a few days ago and since then i have gotten some additional information that I might have missed the first time.
It has been said in more than a few articles that no court order was given prior to the gun license and firearms being taken away, this action was done solely by the Chief of Police who also it seems has sealed the records in this case, also without a court order.
This is an egregious abuse of power from a Law enforcement official who acted without proof, with only the word of a waitress that a crime MIGHT be committed!
In my opinion by sealing the record the Chief has pretty much admitted that he acted illegally and is trying to cover his backside.
The Chief has forgotten that we live in a Country where citizens are protected from this type of abuse by Law enforcement by the Constitution and HE ALONE CANNOT decide to deny a citizen of those rights for either personal, political reasons or an unsubstantiated statement from another citizen!
If this Chief of Police is allowed to keep his job and not be punished for his violation of the Constitutional rights of this gentleman then it will set a dangerous precedent.
As I have said before, these rights were written into our Constitution by our forefathers because of acts such as these when we were under British rule!
Are we now returning to those days?
Sadly, I suspect we are returning to those days. Common Sense Gun Safety Laws, are just code for “we want to take your guns, but are not ready to go that far YET, so we will take small steps.” Red Flag laws are one of those steps. It sets precedent to violate the 2A for “public safety” without due process.
If anyone has studied the teachings of Mr. Alan Korwin I highly recommend you do, his teachings are really on point and very timely to what is going on in the US at this point in time.