Would you have brought your gun in?

[tannybogus]

Guns test-fired in search for girls' killer

WELEETKA, Okla. (AP) - Investigators searching for the killer or killers of 2 Oklahoma girls spent the weekend test-firing guns.
Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation spokeswoman Jessica Brown says 60 letters were sent to registered owners of .40-caliber handguns, asking them to voluntarily submit their weapons for testing.Brown says 40 owners showed up and their guns were fired outside the Okfuskee (ohk-FUS'-kee) County Courthouse. Five people said they no longer owned the guns but gave the names of the new owners.
Fifteen gun owners didn't show up.
Investigators previously hadn't released the caliber of guns used to kill 11-year-old Skyla Whitaker and 13-year-old Taylor Paschal-Placker. They were shot to death in June along a country road about 70 miles southwest of Tulsa.

http://www.wtkr.com/Global/story.asp?S=8862367

I wouldn't have.

[slackmaster]

1. Not without a search warrant

Fuck no.

Then again, I live in San Diego, California. I might feel differently if I lived in Weleetka.

[sharesunited]

2. So if they knocked on your door, then what?

[tannybogus]

5. I'd get a lawyer if I had to. With no warrant, no!

Where is there probable cause?

[MercutioATC]

9. Damn straight!

Show me the warrant and I'll be happy to comply.

Otherwise, no.

[comradebillyboy]

10. I'd want to see a search warrent

and a lawyer. Our rights aren't worth a damn if we won't defend them.

[sharesunited]

13. What would the search warrant specify?

That there was reason to believe you were in possession of a gun registered to you?

Gun registration preempts any requirement to obtain search warrant.

Just like an automobile registered to you.

Gee, we got a judge to agree you might own a car.

[tannybogus]

15. Ah, but owning the gun is not the crux of the matter.

They want to test fire the gun.

Could you get a warrant to drive my car without some probable cause to do so?

That to me is a fishing expedition unless you have other evidence to support

a belief I was involved in a crime. The mere ownership of car or gun should

not make one a "person of interest."

[MicaelS]

25. Incorrect analogy

It would be like the police asking if they could search your car with with your permission. The answer would be as with the ballistic test "get a warrant."

[Dimensio0]

29. Please cite a relevant legal prescedent.

I was unaware that vehicular registration allowed police to search automobiles without first obtaining a search warrant. Please identify the relevant legal prescedent that allows such an action.

[happyslug]

55. The Supreme Court has long upheld searches of cars without Warrants

Now the Police MUST have Probable cause, but a warrant is NOT needed given the fact cars are "movable" i.e. unless searched right NOW, the car may be moved out of state and any evidence destroyed.

Now registration by itself does NOT give the police the right to search, but if the police have probable cause to search a car, they do NOT have to wait for a warrant.

See US vs Ross for more details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Ross
http://law.jrank.org/pages/13034/United-States-v-Ross.html

Actual Case on Fine law:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=456&page=798

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Are you serious?

They would have to obtain a court order to compel you to produce the gun so it could be tested for a ballistics match.

David

[Howzit]

48. What are you going to do if they don't want to give it back?

You surrendered it voluntarily and it might just be a public nuisance. If it wasn't registered before it is now, even if you get it back.

Have the guns taken during Katrina been given back to their lawful owners, without damage?


Reply intended for post #10

[krispos42]

50. The search warrant would have to specify...

the place the gun was believed to be at, the make and model of the gun, the caliber of the gun, possibly the serial number of the gun, and certify that the police can lawfully sieze the gun to perform ballistic testing of the bullet and/or case.



"Mister John Smith, I'm Detective Johnson of the Anycity Police Department. Our records state that you have a Springfield Armory "XD" handgun, caliber .40 S&W, serial number 987456321, registred with the state police. I have a warrant to take this gun to the police lab and fire sufficient ammunition through it to obtain a forensic profile of the bullets and casings said gun discharges. Will you please take me to this gun immediately?"






Besides, the fact that you own a car and have it registered with the state does not premempt your right of privacy as it extends to your vehicle. The police need a search warrant or probable cause to search your vehicle regardless of where it is.

[lepus]

66. This is a semi local event

But in any case, if the warrant was just a general one for the firearm without listing that there was probable cause that it was involved in the childrens death, I would tell Detective Johnson to go pound sand.

Just owning a firearm of the same caliber is not probable cause.

[lepus]

34. Even with a warrant, not only no but Hell No.

This is a fishing expedition. The fucked up thing was a judge signed off on the fishing expedition.

Deny cops entry, resist, force the cops to arrest you, then sue everyone in federal court for violations of civil rights. Where was the reasonable cause to justify one warrant much less the rest of them?

This was blatant fishing. ie The cops aint got a clue and are shaking everyones tree that they can, hoping beyond hope that the bad guy falls out.

Hmm. Just an afterthought. 9mm and .45 are the most common handguns in use, along with .38 and .357. The majority of the people I know that have .40's are LEO's. Might be they need to look a bit closer to home.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. I'd say hello officer how can I help you?

your turn.

David

[S_B_Jackson]

57. Well, off the top of my head....

I great the officers politely, and courteously rebuff them unless presented with a validly executed warrant.

[texasleo]

3. Nope

[virginia mountainman]

4. NO

I value the 4th Amendment.. I did not commit no crime, if they want to waist time, serving me with a warrent, fine, it will be their loss in the long run

The cops need to get off their asses, and do some REAL Police work, instead of generally harassing the citizenry.

[jdlh8894]

6. IMHO

I think they did some great work. Instead of serving 55 warrants,all they have to do now is serve 15. Maybe even less. Saved time and money.

[tannybogus]

7. What's the probable cause?

I'm sure they can probably find someone to sign a warrant at any rate.
However, I'm curious.

[comradebillyboy]

11. ler's see if a judge will grant thos search warrants

In OK I doubt it.

[slackmaster]

14. It's possible that none of those 15 are going to pan out either

The whole effort may be a waste of time.

[benEzra]

27. Refusing consent to a voluntary search is NOT probable cause for an involuntary search.

The courts have ruled repeatedly on that.

[TPaine7]

28. If a woman is raped by a white male

would that justify mandatory sperm samples from all Caucasian penis owners in the vicinity? Should a judge sign a warrant for such a sweep?

That's approximately how legitimate what you describe is. I worry about us. We should jealously guard our rights. Police convenience does not trump the Constitution.

[Callisto32]

58. So, if these girls were stabbed, we could search everyone with a similar knife?

[dems_rightnow]

8. No chance

I have better things to do than jack around proving my innocence.

[RB TexLa]

12. Sure, I'd want to get it out of the way, if they want to fire my gun they would get a warrant and do

so. I'd rather they not waste time trying to get to my gun so they can use that time to find the killer. There is responsibility in owning guns.


On edit: I don't care for them having a list of registered gun owners.

[IndependentDem]

16. I would have...

since it was a voluntary thing i would have had no problems with it. especially since i didn't do it.

[2KS2KHonda]

18. Well, I'm sure the guilty party would be among the first to bring in the murder weapon

for testing.


Do I need :sarcasm:?

[AtheistCrusader]

52. And what if the perp is smart enough

to change out the barrel or the bolt face? And then yours might be the next closest ballistic match?

You could be in for a world of legal fees. Even worse, a wrongful conviction. Where were you on the night of June 23rd anyway?

[tburnsten]

59. "ballistic tests" are frequently bungled

mostly by people or labs who overestimate their ability to determine what gun fired specific bullets. Differences in jacket thickness and composition can make it near impossible to replicate a shot, as can things like bones, different tissues, and intermediate barriers like clothing which all affect a bullet pretty heavily. Someone who posts on another forum I frequent told a story about some forensic work he did for a defense attorney whose client, along with another man, shot and killed a drug dealer. Her client was trying to foist the bulk of the punishment off on the other murderer by claiming that he only shot the man once, while the co-defendant shot him three times, including an execution shot. Their weapons were a .38 Special (bullet diameter .357") and a 9x19mm (bullet diameter .355") and despite all the modern technology showcased on such dramas as CSI and Law & Order, they could not figure out which bullets hit him where. The .38 was indeed fired three times, that was a fact, and the 9mm was fired once, by the defendants story and by the single casing they found in the mans pool. They did prove that the client, who was using the 9mm, fired one shot from a specific area and because of that and the dead mans wounds they figured out that the one murderer did not land the killing shot on him, though it might have been a fatal wound had he lived long enough to die from it.



Point being that we can't even tell the difference between three .357 revolver bullets and one .355 fired from an autoloader, how on earth do you expect them to determine which pistol (because you know they will nail someone innocent if they can't find the real murderer, can't let the political action they took result in nothing) of the same action and caliber was used to kill those girls?

[2KS2KHonda]

17. "Registered owners"? WTF is that? I have many guns, none "registered."

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

23. The BATF Form 4473 or whatever it's called now is a form of registration

:hi:

[aikoaiko]

19. Its possible the murderer is a freepin idiot who would volunteer his gun.....

...but unlikely anyone is that dumb.


I didn't know OK had a gun registry? Anyone know more about what they are talking about?

[tannybogus]

21. OSBI agents went to gun dealers and pawnshops to create a list of .40-caliber Glock owners.

Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation agents knew the caliber of the guns used in the killings, so they merely checked with area gun dealers and pawnshops to determine who had bought or recently pawned .40-caliber Glocks.

"It's a typical procedure of any investigation" involving a gun, according to Jessica Brown, spokeswoman for the OSBI.

That time-consuming procedure yielded the OSBI the names of more than 60 owners of .40-caliber guns in the Weleetka area.
<snip>
On Monday, when the OSBI announced that it had test-fired weapons, it stated in its press release that it had sent letters to the "registered gun owners."

That prompted concern Tuesday among many in the public, who noted that Oklahoma does not have a gun-registry law nor a central database of gun owners.

Tom Harris, an agent with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in Tulsa, confirmed that.

According to Harris, most states, including Oklahoma, and the federal government do not have lists of registered gun owners.
<snip>
Harris said gun dealers — "federal firearms licensees" — have to fill out ATF form 4473 whenever a weapon is purchased. The form lists the buyer, the address and other pertinent information.

They also have to contact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to determine whether the prospective buyer can legally purchase a weapon.

Harris said the 4473 forms stay with the gun dealers and are not submitted to any government agency. They are, however, available to law enforcement.
<snip>
http://www.tulsaworld.com/common/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleID=20080820_12_A1_hOSBIa443762

[one-eyed fat man]

35. not exactly............

"Harris said the 4473 forms stay with the gun dealers and are not submitted to any government agency."

When an FFL quits the business, retires or turns in his license he MUST surrender his "bound book" and all his records to the ATF within 14 days. It is a felony for him to fail to comply with this requirement.

There are now 40 years worth of these transactions in the ATF's hands at Martinsburg, WV and a crew of clerks scanning and digitizing them.

[krispos42]

65. So this really is just kind of a long shot

They're hoping the guy bought the gun recently and they can get something that way or he pawned the murder weapon for the money.

Part of a comprehensive investigation.

[2KS2KHonda]

22. I just called my neighbor who owns a pawn shop to confirm (in case it was something new

that I missed)...no there is neither a requirement or a mechanism for registering guns. There are, of course the required -sales- records but they wouldn't reflect any information on guns bought privately, elsewhere or long ago or acquired as gifts/inheritance etc.

[slackmaster]

24. Exactly

There is no way to produce a comprehensive list of people who own a particular type of firearm.

[NightWatcher]

20. gee, I've got a 40 cal, maybe I should have to prove my innocence too

and hope that the forensics people dont screw up and land me in prison.

[DailyGrind51]

26. "From my cold dead fingers!"

[SteveM]

30. No. (nt)

[jody]

31. No. n/t

[michreject]

32. Nope

Did the police really think the killer would turn in the murder weapon for testing?

[Hangingon]

33. I would want a warrant.

My first question woulds be how long will you and how do I get it back.

[hogwyld]

36. YES!

If I didn't commit the crime, and had nothing to hide, why not? A lot of people are so paraniod, I wonder if they are mentally capable of gun ownership in that they think every reasonable request is some nefarious scheme at gun confiscation.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. Because the police never make mistakes right?

[hogwyld]

44. Never said that

but if the honest gun owners would submit to the testing, it would narrow down the suspect list.

[tburnsten]

60. Narrow it down to what?

The list of owners who bought privately, were gifted, owned prior to moving into the state, illegally possess them, stole or borrowed them? That isn't "narrowing" it down at all, they have only asked a small minority of owners to check theirs. The other people will not be asked because the police have no way of knowing who they are. Back to square one, old fashioned police work and no handouts.

[pipoman]

41. You do realize

"If I didn't commit the crime, and had nothing to hide.."

This is the exact logic used to violate your rights right now as it relates to warrantless wire taps? If you have nothing to hide why would you care? What about accessing your library records? Nothing to hide? By all means! How about searching your car on a routine traffic stop? You must be hiding something if you refuse!

[hogwyld]

43. I guess I don't view every police official

in contempt and suspicion. If I can help to solve the crime by narrowing down their suspect list, so much the better. That's precisley why a national gun registration system is warranted.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. Way to completely ignore the point.

Did you cover your eyes when you read the post? You should go to the police station and volunteer blood and semen samples to exclude you as a suspect every time there is a crime. That would be so much the better right, one fewer suspect. That's a great reason for a National DNA registration database.

David

[pipoman]

46. So that is a yes?

This is the exact logic used to violate your rights right now as it relates to warrantless wire taps? If you have nothing to hide why would you care? What about accessing your library records? Nothing to hide? By all means! How about searching your car on a routine traffic stop? You must be hiding something if you refuse!

You do believe warrantless wire taps area good thing to exclude you from suspicion as a terrorist? yes? You do believe your library records should be accessible without a warrant for the greater good of excluding you as a suspect? yes? You would unquestionably allow your vehicle, or home for that matter, searched without a warrant because you have nothing to hide? yes?

I strongly suspect most everyone on this site would strongly disagree with you on those points.

Of coarse there is the possibility that your answer is no to the above. That would just make you a hypocrite willing to sacrifice the rights of others when you wouldn't willingly submit yourself.

[krispos42]

51. Gee, where have I heard that argument before?

Oh, yes, people defending warrantless wiretapping.



Another example about how many on the left begin sounding like the right when it comes to guns.

To the left's credit, it's usually ONLY about gun that they begin sounding like the right.

[SteveM]

61. Goodness! "...had nothing to hide, why not?" Using a RW meme (nt)

[Tejas]

63. "Komrade, your hard drive please"

"Do not worry, if you have not committed a crime then you have no need to worry, now do you?"

[jeepnstein]

37. You got a warrant?

Otherwise pound sand, boys. There's no way I'd expose myself to that kind of risk on a fishing expedition. I'd want them to show probable cause for why they suspected my gun fired those shots. Why shouldn't I expect the Constitution to protect me from such fishing expeditions?

J.

[krispos42]

42. Not likely

Only if I had some reason to suspect that my gun had been used recently without my knowledge or consent.

"Gee, somebody fired my gun recently. And they're a girl who died from the same caliber. Maybe I should see the police."






Of course, if I suspected that maybe a family member had done it, I might give a different answer.

Life can be complicated.

[Howzit]

47. No, mine is .40 not 40 cal.... N/T

[noblesse oblige]

49. Certainly Not...

There is no probable cause. This is just a fishing expedition by the police.

And guns shouldn't be registered in the first place. None of my guns are registered and I have a concealed carry permit. It does not specify a particular handgun or caliber.

[tburnsten]

53. Hell no

not to those clowns. If they want to threaten to "come check up on you" if you don't, they can speak to a lawyer. Would you really trust a police organization to ballistically test your weapon, knowing how ineffective and poorly executed just aboput every "ballistic fingerprinting" attempt is/ I wouldn't , I'm not about to volunteer to have a murder charge pinned on me for no reason other than the police relying on a pathetically useless "scientific" procedure like that. They aren't going to perfectly replicate the shots, so they can't realistically match anything.

[DeadEyeDyck]

54. Not me

[S_B_Jackson]

56. Absolutely....

right after I was presented with a warrant specifying myself and exactly which firearms they wished to test-fire.

[Rabon]

62. No

I have control of my weapons at all times and know they have not been used in a crime.

[Tejas]

64. If it were a 9mm,

would the same dragnet be in progress?

[Boomer 50]

67. Absolutely not.

Get a warrant if you want to test anything, and I mean anything of mine.

[JonQ]

68. What's the point of this?

Were they hoping the murderer A) had a legally registered and B) would just turn himself in? Because both of those things have to work for this to make any sense.