|
|
|
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:
RI: ACLU files lawsuit against North Smithfield police over seizure of guns
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The ACLU today filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of a North Smithfield resident, seeking the return of weapons that were seized from him over six years ago by the local police department and which the department still refuses to return to him.
The lawsuit, filed by RI ACLU volunteer attorney Thomas W. Lyons on behalf of Jason Richer, argues that the North Smithfield Police Department violated his right to due process and his right to keep and bear arms by retaining his property without just cause. The ACLU successfully filed a similar lawsuit against the Cranston Police Department three years ago.
|
| Comment by:
teebonicus
(4/24/2015)
|
"Police departments must learn that the Constitution simply does not allow them to arbitrarily keep the property of innocent residents.”
There is only one way to do that: Deny qualified immunity and make officials who institute this unconstitutional policy criminally and civilly liable, PERSONALLY, immediately subsequent to a "show cause" hearing, and issue permanent injunctive relief binding the department in all cases as well. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
