Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Minuteman Founder Ordered to Surrender Guns

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by CEF1959, Jun 9, 2010.

  1. CEF1959

    CEF1959 Willamette Valley, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    986
    Likes Received:
    14
  2. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    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
     
  3. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    1,707
    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.....
     
  4. skud_dusty

    skud_dusty Salem, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    120
    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?
     
  5. sigfreak

    sigfreak Iowa New Member

    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wouldn`t this be "Guilty" till proven innocent?
     
  6. skud_dusty

    skud_dusty Salem, OR Active Member

    Messages:
    752
    Likes Received:
    120
    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.
     
  7. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,266
    I comend you for seeing through the BS:thumbup: Seems either trolling or complaining to have a thred closed is standard proceedure for some.:bluelaugh::bluelaugh:

    jj
     
  8. enjr4

    enjr4 Renton, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    257
    Likes Received:
    73
    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
     
  9. Oakley1wa

    Oakley1wa Beaverton, Oregon, United States Member

    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    4
  10. Chee-to

    Chee-to Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    1,707
    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..........
     
  11. Martini_Up

    Martini_Up NW USA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,632
    Likes Received:
    1,734
    i agree with the cheese that goes crunch. the guy has been found guilty based on an allegation.
     
  12. ZachS

    ZachS Eugene/PDX Active Member

    Messages:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    11
    He had the opportunity to present evidence in his defense.
     
  13. Minisocks

    Minisocks Portland Member

    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    5
    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.
     
  14. 2zuks

    2zuks Dallas, Oregon Member

    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  15. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    Heard of? Heck I've lived through it! :laugh::bluelaugh::laugh: I have the court papers and the lawyer receipts to prove it! :eek:
     
  16. Minisocks

    Minisocks Portland Member

    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    5
    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
     
  17. Trlsmn

    Trlsmn In Utero (Portland) Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,838
    Likes Received:
    1,186
    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.
     
  18. Minisocks

    Minisocks Portland Member

    Messages:
    232
    Likes Received:
    5
    Sure, but why make it easy for him?
     
  19. 2zuks

    2zuks Dallas, Oregon Member

    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  20. deen_ad

    deen_ad Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Likes Received:
    1,310
    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!