|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
OH: Cleveland Police Won't Give Burglary Victim His Gun Back
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Cleveland man is going after the city of Cleveland's police department for what's rightfully— Constitutionally-stamped— his. That's the gist of a recent lawsuit filed on behalf of Brian Bridges against the city in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas court. Following a 2015 justified shooting, Bridges claims the city are still holding onto his firearm and wont' return it even though the case is closed.
|
| Comment by:
xqqme
(5/9/2017)
|
What would be nice to see:
Judge: "You will bring Mr. Bridges' firearm to this court this afternoon, and you will, in my presence, allow him to inspect it for damage. We will then travel to the Police Department firing range, where he will be given the opportunity to fire the weapon to confirm that it is still functional. If all is well, Mr. Bridges will then take possession of his property and be dismissed, and he will be allowed to travel to his home with his weapon unmolested. If, however, it is determined that his property has been damaged in any way, the City of Cleveland will provide him with a brand new firearm of the same make and model, 200 rounds ammunition, and the sum of $50,000 in damages... do I make myself clear?" |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
