Reply #31: Interesting

[Thortin]

Here is data that you had in post #8 "Records show Razzano lives in King's district, but Razzano submitted in his lawsuit a certified copy of his voting records showing him registered in McCarthy's district."

Do you even read what you post?
Seriously

Really? If you made threats against your head of state in letters demanding that s/he follow a course of action that you wanted him/her to follow, would that be too fucking bad for George W. Bush?

You are making the assumption that Razzano threatened McCarthy. I have a feeling that no threats were made based upon... (see below)

I don't know what this individual said in his letters or in person any more than you do.

True. But we can surmise what was NOT in them by lack of certain actions. We can surmise that there were no overt threats involved as Razzano was not arrested. In this country (at least in my state, Calif) if you make overt threats (I'm going to kill you, etc.) you can be arrested and charged with a felony.

Since to the best of my knowledge Razzano hasn't been charged with anything his weapons should not have been confiscated.

But I do know the difference between petitioning a government for redress of grievances and harassment/threats, and I would not be saying that what this individual did was "too fucking bad" for the people he was petitioning/harassing/threatening until I knew what he had said and done.

It is his right as a citizen to write or visit his/her representative. If the representative doesn't like it then they need to get out.

Given the fact that Razzano was not charged with a crime the actions by the police were reprehensible

I see no people living in California. Doesn't mean there aren't any. Just means I can't see 'em.

non sequitur
FYI, all I have to do is look outside and I can verify for you that there are plenty of people in California

Are you saying there WAS NO lawful basis for seizure of his guns, or just that don't know what it was?

It appears that there was no lawful basis for the seizure of the guns.

If Razzano wasn't charged, the seizure was not legal.

There isn't really much need for you to announce that you are ignorant of something, which seems to be all you have done.


Best way to end a discussion, with a nice ad hominem attack. You seem to jump to many more conclusions than Slackmaster did.

His assessment is basically right, there doesn't seem to be any legal reason for confiscating the guns. Now mind you, the original even happened in mid-March, and here we are in late July and he still hasn't received his guns back. This smacks of abuse of police power at the behest of an elected official. Oh, by the way.

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under “color of any law,” the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.