Is this a blatant violation of the 2nd Amendment?

But it does happen all the time.

Words do not justify brandishing arms, two wrongs do not make a right.

Not to mention the fact what they did was a real PR booster to the anti-gunners.

All bets are off once an intruder enters a persons home, if they get out alive their lucky, and as I stated if they where 100% cooperative they would get to go to jail versus the morgue.

It's the law which is a very important thing to follow if you want to remain on the winning side.

That's up to the thug, he has a choice 100% compliance or death.

Nope they are part of the problem, not a solution.

Because it was clear they where not inside their home, where they live matters not.

 

The gate that was broken was on community property, they live in a gated community and the gate belongs to the association not the home owners.

That's a grey area, if they where on private property that would be trespassing, but if that property is maintained by the local government it is technically open to all and a lot of gated communities do not annex the roads and the sidewalks that gets them out of maintenance, property tax's and liability.

It all depends on how the community was first developed and platted.

 

An extraordinarily rare point of view from your side of politics. You're in a tiny group I'd say.

 

A street mob of trespassers is always a serious threat. Brandishing should be encouraged over shooting.

 

Good for gun sales though. I am sure the couple is far better armed by now.

 

Certainly that was an amazingly dumb thing to have said and something which even staunch anti-gun people wouldn't say. It was also evidence that he is left wing at heart on guns. After all, the man is a life long Democrat.

 

Brandishing is a good way to get legally killed.

 

You're assuming that they would be able to buy guns while being investigated.

 

It is often a good alternative to actually pulling the trigger.

 

Americans are still innocent until a jury says they are not.
Preventing them from buying guns would also be a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

I wonder how the prosecutor even managed to justify the search warrant.

 

You don't understand how Democrat Progressives think.

We can presume there were many people (including the District Attorney) who really did not like what the homeowners did in this situation (especially since it was against a crowd of BLM activists, and possibly because the homeowners are rich white people and the crowd was black), and who are the type who border on thinking guns should be illegal.

I really shouldn't have to spell this out for you. This is something you should be able to figure out on your own.

 

nope, Trump is 100% Republican, the right claimed him, he is all theirs, lol

 

Republicans don't say what Trump said about due process. Are you saying that Trump WASN'T a life long Dem?

 

Yeah, but does this mean that they cannot be prevented from buying guns in that state just because they've not been found guilty?

I'm sure that it was nothing that would stand up to even the SLIGHTEST bit of legal scrutiny. Hopefully Barr the BOSS will sort it out!

 

No, but ACTION justifies it. And the actions of these filthy DIRTBAGS included breaking into the McCloskey's private community.
If you lived their, what would you suppose the dirtbags were planning on doing? Just going for a casual stroll?

Irrelevant, but how so?

My point is that deadly force would've been certainly justified if they entered the house, but not the only option. Whereas you seem to be saying that shooting to kill would be the only option.

Well, why would they wish they had received some training only when they get to trial? They may wish that already.

I wasn't talking about the thugs. You said what the McCloskey's did was, "stupid and is not going to cost them dearly", and I was just checking to see if you instead meant, it IS NOT going to cost them dearly, given that, that would make more sense in context of them being "stupid."

Who, the McCloskey's, or the "leftists in power" that I referred to?

No idea what you mean. You asked, "while they are awaiting a bond hearing who's watching their home?" Why would they be AWAY from their home?

 

Well?

 

The prosecutor may argue that the seized weapon is "evidence" of a crime, but absent a conviction the homeowner retains the right to keep and bear arms. Of course, legislators can write and pass unconstitutional laws that have the force of laws until they are knocked down by the courts.

I have never had much confidence in Barr. I hope I am wrong about him.

 

This is actually fairly common. Someone complains to police that a crime was committed. I don’t know Kentucky’s laws but the offense complained of is likely akin to what we in Virginia call “brandishing a firearm”—to point hold, or brandish a firearm in a threatening manner so as to induce fear in another.

As a part of the investigation into the complaint someone decided to get a search warrant. The 4th Amendment controls this process. A law enforcement officer—likely after consulting with the local prosecutor—goes before a judicial officer to ask for a search warrant. The warrant would state the specific location to be searched and the items sought to be searched for and seized if found (i.e. the residence of X to be searched for an AR-15 style rifle.) The request requires an affidavit in support of the request for the warrant. That affidavit is made under oath. It will set forth 1. the crime being investigated, 2. the facts that establish probable cause to believe the items sought to be seized are evidence of that crime, and 3. the facts that establish probable cause to believe the items sought will be found at the location to be searched. The affidavit will also give reasons why the judicial officer should believe that the information establishing probable cause is accurate. If the judicial officer believes probable cause has been established, then the warrant is issued.

News reports indicate law enforcement obtained a search warrant, which means an affidavit has been filed with a court somewhere that outlines all of this. Typically these affidavits are open for public inspection unless law enforcement convinces a court to seal the affidavit. For example, affidavits are sometimes sealed to protect the identify of confidential informants who are still working undercover, or to prevent people involved in an ongoing criminal enterprise from learning the police are on to them. I don’t know Kentucky law, but I can’t see any sound reason for sealing the affidavit so it should be accessible to know exactly why these guns were sought.

The issuance of a search warrant would have authorized law enforcement to enter and search the entire area named in the warrant. In this case, it appears law enforcement told the couple they had a search warrant and allowed them to surrender the firearms rather than have their house searched.

The legal standard for a search warrant is the same as the standard for arrest for a crime—probable cause. It is far less than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for any conviction, so it should not be taken as proof of anyone’s guilt. Search warrants happen frequently without the up front issuance of charges because they are tools of investigation used to gather evidence to consider whether charges should be issued.

The process is fairly common. Whether it is a justified investigation is something I leave to you to decide.

 

Do you mean what are those reasons and why is your claim a stupid claim?


The way I see it, some things are not worth taking the effort to explain, they should be so obvious.

I am really not trying to be disrespectful to you, but I've noticed you oftentimes in this forum have asked a lot of very naive questions.

 

Why do you mention Kentucky? And they've not been charged with any such offence, even though they were caught on camera with the guns, threatening the thugs. And I note that only the AR was seized, not the pistol which the wife pointed directly at the thugs, something which Mr. McCloskey did not do with his AR as far as I know. So how do you explain that?

I've never heard of a search warrant to find LEGAL things such as legal guns. If they were looking for illegal guns or drugs I could understand. And if the AR was illegal, we'd know about it. This seems to be a very different search warrant to most, which are looking for illegal things.

How would seizing the AR be evidence that they were brandishing?

 

It is my understanding that their weapons will be returned to them, pending some idiotic functionality testing that the law needs to conduct to determine if they are actually working firearms.

My thoughts are that it is an infringement of their rkba, unless they willfully agreed to relinquish that right.

People retain the right to give up their rights, if they so choose.

 

Officials in charge can do things without having good enough reasons.
Some people are stupid or naive enough not to realize this.

The real question is, is the person in charge who makes the decisions ever going to be held accountable for decision, especially when there was some reason, it just wasn't good enough.
The answer is usually no.
Which explains how this can happen.

 

Why in the hell would the law need to determine if they are actually working firearms?

 

Naive? I'm not American. Even if I was, do you expect all Americans to be experts on the law?

 

A number of people in this thread disagree with you.