Drug bust = Guns seized

[GeauxLSU]

Just buy guns from individuals and at gun shows

That wouldn't justify confiscating the guns then. We've apparently fill in a LOT of blanks to justify this without any proof.
1) The guns were acquired illegally even though there is absolutely zero evidence much less proof to suggest such a thing.
2) They were users. Even though there is zero evidence much less proof to suggest such a thing.
3) They are in fact going to be found guilty of felony charges (crystal ball) so pre-emptive confiscation is fine.

People just like confiscating guns. Including gun owners. Guns r bad mkay?

 

[Gaffer1968]

you ask for specific reasons so I posted the relevant law from the ATF. I don't know how that is generalizing but I guess if you say so.. Cant argue with printed law wether you agree with the law or not.

No, I questioned your citation of the specific 4473 question, disproved it and then you generalize on drug laws. You're right about your drug laws - they fit what you want, when you want it.

 

[TCMedic]

They do what they gotta do. Get meaninglessly specific when it suits them and when that gets shot down then they go to "good-citizen" generalizations.

I posted the exact definitions from the ATF I'm not generalizing anything. Saying what if you walked into the house just before the raid would make you guilty is generalizing

 

[GeauxLSU]

They do what they gotta do. Get meaninglessly specific when it suits them and when that gets shot down then they go to "good-citizen" generalizations.

Objectivity is dead. What's funny (to me) is I'm probably one of the biggest anti drug people on these boards. But I have enough objectivity to separate activities I don't like (drug dealers) from activities I don't like (confiscating private property pre-emptively). Conflation is an art form around here.

 

[Gaffer1968]

Of course not because a good narc unit would have a couple guys watching the house for a long time before any search happens. Documenting video taping comings and going’s, like I said earlier if you want to know the whole story, the only way to get it would be sitting in a court room watching a trial. Everything on here is irrelevant at this point regarding a news story

Chief Deputy Scott Cheek with the Rabun County Sheriff's Office said in mid-June investigators received an anonymous tip about possible drug activity at 737 Hope Haven Lane in Rabun Gap. That was all it took....no exhaustive anything....

 

[GeauxLSU]

I posted the exact definitions from the ATF I'm not generalizing anything. Saying what if you walked into the house just before the raid would make you guilty is generalizing

Why? Exactly how long do you have to be in the house before you are the one charged with "possession"?

 

[TCMedic]

No, I questioned your citation of the specific 4473 question, disproved it and then you generalize on drug laws. You're right about your drug laws - they fit what you want, when you want it.

it's not MY drug laws it's the ATF DEFINITIONS relevant for and to every line of form 4473

 

[TCMedic]

Why? Exactly how long do you have to be in the house before you are the one charged with possession?

if you are driving in a car and your passenger has drugs unless the passenger admits they are his you both will be charged and vice versa

 

[outlaw1961]

Chief Deputy Scott Cheek with the Rabun County Sheriff's Office said in mid-June investigators received an anonymous tip about possible drug activity at 737 Hope Haven Lane in Rabun Gap. That's what was done.....and they got a warrant from a pocket judge...

Cant speak for Raven Co but you need a hell of a lot more than a tip to secure a search warrant. Our unit received over 1400 tips a year.

 

[Gaffer1968]

it's not MY drug laws it's the ATF DEFINITIONS relevant for and to every line of form 4473

I remind you that ATF "definitions and rules" are not legislated statute. They are unchallenged assertions of applicability to some nebulous existing law they say applies. It's what's gonna take your shockwave braces, your AR pistols and what not. Unlegislated interpretations. Think on that.