Minuteman Founder Ordered to Surrender Guns

[CEF1959]

Looks like he's been accused of crossing some boundaries after defending another.

<broken link removed>

Read More

 

[Trlsmn]

Looks like he's been accused of crossing some boundaries after defending another.

<broken link removed>

Come on now that line is only meant to catch an emotional reaction from the forum members, sounds like trolling to me.

Here's what it really says

The founder of the Minuteman border watch group has been ordered by a Maricopa County judge to surrender his weapons to police and stay away from his wife and children.

The order comes after his estranged wife said he threatened to kill his family.

Simcox was working for U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Hayworth but is no longer employed by the Republican's campaign.

 

[Chee-to]

This sure isn't the first time a "petition for an order of protection" has been granted to the wife in a divorce case, only a accusation is required and your guns are gone, it happens every day.....

 

[skud_dusty]

This sure isn't the first time a "petition for an order of protection" has been granted to the wife in a divorce case, only a accusation is required and your guns are gone, it happens every day.....

And if it turns out to be BS and he STILL doesn't get his stuff back then it's time to make a fuss. Would you rather the police have waited till he killed his wife to take his guns?

 

[sigfreak]

Wouldn`t this be "Guilty" till proven innocent?

 

[skud_dusty]

Guilty means he killed his wife and kids and would be rotting in jail. I love my rights as much as anyone but I'd rather see him lose his guns till he's out of court rather than some dead children.

 

[Just Jim]

Come on now that line is only meant to catch an emotional reaction from the forum members, sounds like trolling to me.

Here's what it really says

I comend you for seeing through the BS Seems either trolling or complaining to have a thred closed is standard proceedure for some.

jj

 

[enjr4]

What if the title of this thread was, "Man ordered to susrrender guns after judge orders protective order for threating to kill wife and childern."

How many of you would be jumping through your attitudes over that? Just because the man has a title does not revoke the laws (I truly hope).

I know here in Washington it is what happens when you pi$$-off someone or scare someone enough to have them go to court. Doesn't usually solve anything, but them is the rules.
enjr4

 

[Oakley1wa]

http://www.policeone.com/border-pat...eman-founder-may-have-threatened-family-cops/

 

[Chee-to]

And if it turns out to be BS and he STILL doesn't get his stuff back then it's time to make a fuss. Would you rather the police have waited till he killed his wife to take his guns?

That's an asinine statement.

Chris Simcox's wife, who is seeking a divorce, alleges in court documents he brandished a gun and threatened to shoot his family on at least two occasions in late 2009.

"Simcox calls the accusations, "absolutely untrue," and says "the rest will be divulged" in court, reports KOLD.

Somebody's lying, this all happened last year. Why wasn't he arrested ?

If she said he had threatened to run her over with his Hummer do you think they would confiscate his car ? This is a typical divorce lawyer tactic. the point is you can be stripped of your rights whether guilty or not with an accusation.
The only reason this is news is obvious....BTW do you believe if he really wanted to get a gun and do her harm, he couldn't ? Maybe they should just lock him up and throw away the key..........

 

[Martini_Up]

i agree with the cheese that goes crunch. the guy has been found guilty based on an allegation.

 

[ZachS]

He had the opportunity to present evidence in his defense.

 

[Minisocks]

Simcox's wife has an active restraining order (order of protection) filed against him since April due to alleged threats. Asking him to surrender his weapons is perfectly reasonable until the order is lifted. The justice system has a duty to protect.

 

[2zuks]

Simcox's wife has an active restraining order (order of protection) filed against him since April due to alleged threats. Asking him to surrender his weapons is perfectly reasonable until the order is lifted. The justice system has a duty to protect.

Have you guys ever heard of a woman scorned? lol. Unless there is evidence that he did something wrong, other than a interested parties word, I think taking his guns is unreasonable. I didn't think people were presumed guilty until proven innocent in the US. Maybe that was from the times when the constitution was acknowledged.

 

[Trlsmn]

Have you guys ever heard of a woman scorned? lol. Unless there is evidence that he did something wrong, other than a interested parties word, I think taking his guns is unreasonable. I didn't think people were presumed guilty until proven innocent in the US. Maybe that was from the times when the constitution was acknowledged.

Heard of? Heck I've lived through it! I have the court papers and the lawyer receipts to prove it!

 

[Minisocks]

Have you guys ever heard of a woman scorned? lol. Unless there is evidence that he did something wrong, other than a interested parties word, I think taking his guns is unreasonable. I didn't think people were presumed guilty until proven innocent in the US. Maybe that was from the times when the constitution was acknowledged.

First of all, Simcox has a history of this sort of thing. His first wife also filed with the courts for getting emergency custody of their daughter over fears for their safety.

Gun rights do no supersede rights to life. His current/soon-to-be-ex wife had to go before a judge and argue why she should get an order of protection thus demonstrating a reasonable fear for her safety (read the brief, it's public).

If he were presumed guilty he'd be in jail. This is a reasonable precaution while the order of protection is active.

What, we have to defend anyone just because he owns guns? Really? Simcox is a grade-A bubblegum

edit: really, a grade-A bubblegum? lol

 

[Trlsmn]

I have my doubts that the man that would kill his wife will suddenly decide to change his mind because a court order says he needs to surrender his guns. I'm thinking that guy would be more determined.

 

[Minisocks]

Sure, but why make it easy for him?

 

[2zuks]

Gun rights do no supersede rights to life. His current/soon-to-be-ex wife had to go before a judge and argue why she should get an order of protection thus demonstrating a reasonable fear for her safety (read the brief, it's public).

Never said gun rights supersede rights to life. I simply am saying that we are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty in this country. If we are proven guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, then we are punished.

If the crime is serious enough, then we can lose constitutional rights such as the right bear arms. If we are not found guilty in a court based on the the reasonable doubt standard, we are not punished, and as far as I am concerned shouldn't have our rights messed with.

If he were presumed guilty he'd be in jail. This is a reasonable precaution while the order of protection is active.

This is my point. If he did something wrong, he should be in jail. The problem is that I am guessing they couldn't meet the burder of proof needed to make a criminal case. If they can't do so, then they should not strip him of his rights.

Look, everyone knew O.J. killed his ex wife. They could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and he was free to go with no punishment. Our system is not perfect. Sometimes bad people get away with stuff. I would rather a few bad ones get away then to have a lot of innocent people punished for crimes they didn't commit. That is all I am talking about here.

I don't buy the protective order limiting his rights. It isn't based on the same standard. It would be more like filing a civil suit against the guy and punishing him criminally. That can't happen.

What, we have to defend anyone just because he owns guns? Really? Simcox is a grade-A bubblegum

edit: really, a grade-A bubblegum? lol

I don't defend someone just because he owns a gun. I simply think that we have consitutional rights in this country for a reason. There is a process in which those rights can be removed, if a person is found guilty. If the person is not found guilty of a crime, then he should not have his rights violated. Period.

 

[deen_ad]

This sure isn't the first time a "petition for an order of protection" has been granted to the wife in a divorce case, only a accusation is required and your guns are gone, it happens every day.....

my step daughter died and we had to file for custody of two grandchildren. As part of that research I found that the forms asked about a protection order, did the respondent own any guns, and if so how many and what kind. It never asked if the person was a danger to himself or others or if we had ever been threatened. It never stated that the respondent would have their weapons siezed and be prohibited from owning or even touching one during the pendancy of the action. Same with the divorce filing, guess they figure you're an unfit person because you MIGHT go "postal" due to filing for divorce or custody.

Not in accordance with the Constitution but it gets trampled everyday now, but we all know it keeps people safe!! After all, that piece of paper will stop a knife or bullet. When seconds count an office is only many minutes away!