Sunday, February 15, 2009

Ballard Continues to Alienate Republican Voters; The City's Gun Return Policy

The Indianapolis Star today reports on IMPD's gun return policy that is more strict than other similarly-sized cities, including Louisville, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Milwaukee. The article mentions the case of my client who legally had guns in his home that were taken by the police when they searched his home because the wrong address was on a warrant. IMPD refused to return his guns to my client unless he fill out a form and submit to fingerprinting, which although, not indicated in the article, goes into a national fingerprint database.

It should be noted that I communicated with Jonathan Mayes, head of Litigation for City Legal on this matter. Mayes always claimed that if my client filled out the form and submitted to fingerprinting he could get his guns back. What Mayes concealed from me was the fact that my client's guns had already been destroyed, something I only learned a few days ago from the reporter who did the story. These weapons were destroyed despite the fact that the city had been informed my client intended to seek the return of his weapons, if necessary through litigation. In short, the city destroyed evidence in a potential lawsuit.

But this post is about the politics of the city's gun policy. Any political adviser will tell you that the first thing you do when your party is in the minority (Republicans have about a 44% base in Marion County) is to secure your base before going after independents and Democrats to get to 50%. Yet now, for the second time, Mayor Ballard has chosen instead to take on the most loyal Republican constituency there is - gun owners. One wonders if Mayor Ballard is purposefully trying to lose the 2011 election and drag down the Republican Council with him.

11 comments:

Ken said...

There is nothing wrong with the policy that requires fingerprints to retrieve a gun. The problem is that the laws to acquire guns are too weak in the first place. You are fighting the wrong battle.

It is a shame that police served a warrant at the wrong address - but if the man was truly innocent, would he not have questioned the warrant in the first place? Can he not read his own address? Why is he afraid to have his fingerprints checked? Why does he need to be so heavily armed? Were did he get the guns in the first place? Who paid for them?

There is definitely something fishy on the Westside of Indianapolis.

Here’s the solution: settle out of court. Give him a new .38-caliber handgun - then have the police give him the SKS assault rifle - one bullet at a time!

Diana Vice said...

The better question is why do you disrespect the 2nd Amendment and our right to keep and bear arms? Law abiding citizens have been protecting themselves with guns since the founding of our country. The right (not privilege) is a sacred one. Criminals will always have guns, because they don't respect gun laws. As long as there are criminals on the street, I'll exercise my right to carry a gun and/or have one in my home. The police were wrong, and they should be held accountable for violating this man's 2nd and 4th amendment rights.

Ken said...

You are the one who disrespects the right to bear arms, sweetie. That right to bear arms was granted by (human) lawmakers. It did not include and was not intended to include weapons categorized as “assault” weapons.

Assault: A violent physical or verbal attack.

A person who carries an assault rifle is not one who is protecting themselves - they are the aggressor not a defender.

You want guns? Fine, keep your guns. I hope that you have earned that right. That right however is not automatic. It must be earned as a responsible member of society. If you think you have the right to carry or keep an assault weapon, you are a fool. You probably should not be allowed to drive a car either…but that is another topic.

Diana Vice said...

Learn your history, Ken. A right is inalienable, which means it is given to us by God, the Author of human life; it is not granted by the government. A right is not something one earns. If that were the case, then we would have to earn our right to free speech, or our right to a jury trial as it would not be automatic. If you have to earn something, it's not a right at all. Read the Constitution. Read history. Until then, it's useless to discuss such an important issue with someone who is so full of ignorance.

I love this state said...

Ken, an assault rifle is a selective fire (semi automatic or fully automatic) rifle such as a M-16 or AK-47. A SKS is semi automatic rifle. Don't take my word for it, look it up.
By the way, you can legally purchase and posses fully automatic weapons in the great state of Indiana (such as assault rifles). I Know I have the right to own assault weapons (read the law, fool, before you spout off). So don't go crawling in your neighbors window at 3am, or he may assault you with his legally possessed assault rifle and would be in his rights to do so. And I think the policy of fingerprinting is pure B.S. as well.

Paul K. Ogden said...

Ken,

If you don't have to have to be fingerprinted to own a gun in your house, why should government be able to impose that additional requirement when they wrongly take your guns?

The man absolutely did question the warrant. He was adamaent that the person named in the warrant did not live at his house. The cops had the wrong address on the warrant. Not surprisingly, cops don't believe homeowners when they say a warrant is wrong. That's understandable. They hear that all the time.

You seem to want to assume he's somehow guilty of something. He was never accused of any crime whatsoever.

It sounds like you just don't like the law regarding gunownership. Maybe you should get with your fellow latte-drinking, Brainard-loving Carmelites and seek to have a law passed limiting gun ownership or maybe have the constitution repealed. After all, I'm sure if there is a law against private ownership of guns that surely criminals will follow the law, won't they?

Paul K. Ogden said...

Actually I don't think you have to "earn" a constitutional right. Rather you have that right automatically though it can be lost under certain circumstances, such as if you're involved in a felony.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Mayes violated his duty of candor, concealed the truth, committed perjury, lied to advance a client's case and should be disbarred.

File a complaint with the Disciplinary Commission, and let's get these corrupt attorneys out of the Bar.

Anonymous said...

"That right to bear arms was granted by (human) lawmakers."

Um, no. The right to keep and bear arms and to possess all other manners of fearsome force is a right inherent in humanity.

It's "given" by nobody. I always have the right to defend myself from you, and I couldn't surrender this right if I chose.

guido said...

Assault rifle: High capacity with pistol grip bayonet lug and or flash suppressor. Any combination of three of the aforementioned items deem the weapon an assault rifle. SKS has no pistol grip. Holds 5 rounds and does not have a flash suppressor

Ken said...

The whole point is upfront - lets try again:

There is nothing wrong with the policy that requires fingerprints to retrieve a gun. The problem is that the laws to acquire guns are too weak in the first place. You are fighting the wrong battle.

Semi-automatic? How about semi-intelligent?

Do I need to say it m o r e s l o w e r ? (sic.)


Ps. jealously will get you nowhere!