Utah Guns Forum banner

Super Dell

2K views 4 replies 5 participants last post by  althor 
#1 ·
Been a while since I've been on, but thought I'd make a post about this:

http://fox13now.com/2014/12/11/bizarre- ... handcuffs/

Don't care for the guy, but to seize his guns on the basis of his prior arrest (that he was later acquited of) and a mental condition (which he may or may not have) is unconstitutional in my mind.

Your opinions?
 
#2 ·
Opinions? Sure. I don't see where it says that his firearms were seized but I do see that he must remove his firearms from his home, along with some other conditions to be met, if he wished to be released from custody. He chose to remove his firearms rather than stay in jail until his trial. His choice. It is legal for people to choose not to exercise their Constitutional rights; one can consent to a search, one can chose to talk to law enforcement and confess to a crime, etc.

Going slightly astray, I can see where the judge is coming from (whether I agree with her is an altogether different question) with her list of conditions that must be met for Schanze to be released. Schanze doesn't present himself as the most stable person in the world and I can understand why a mental health assessment was part of the release conditions. If the judge questions his mental health based on his actions, it's not much of a stretch at all to question the prudence of allowing him to be armed. It could easily be argued that it would be imprudent to allow him to be roaming about armed if his sanity is in question. All I can say is that I wasn't there in the courtroom to form a perception as to his demeanor and whether he might potentially pose a threat to himself or others; the judge was there, however.

I will note that Schanze's wife wasn't mandated to also remove any firearms she might own and, as G. Gordon Liddy is quoted as stating, "As a felon I can't own any guns but my wife has a fine collection of guns!"
 
#3 ·
How to deal with those who are accused of, but not yet convicted of a crime is a dicey matter.

Nobody thinks twice about requiring someone who has been arrested to post bail in order to be released. It makes perfect sense that if someone against whom there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial and make a custodial arrest and who faces the potential of incarceration wants to be out of jail before his trial, that person ought to have to provide some guarantee that he is going to return for trial. Putting his property (money or title to a home or car) up as collateral for his return tends to do the job in most cases.

And yet, he is being deprived of his property for a season prior to be convicted. But what else to do? Keep him locked up prior to conviction? Deprivation of liberty is no better than deprivation of property. Let everyone go until their trial date with no collateral all? It doesn't take a social scientist to see how that work out.

Now, I happen to believe that the 2nd amendment demands a higher respect for firearms ownership than for other random property including cash. To require a man not to attend church, not to publish or speak in public, not to vote, not to exercise most of his other rights while being free on bail would be a very unusual circumstance.

Given the useful nature of firearms in committing crimes or resisting (future) arrest, I can see where a requirement to remove guns from one's possession might be more common than barring a man from religious services. What bothers me is that is seems to be entirely routine, as if everyone with a gun must be disarmed as a condition of making bail.

There is no doubt that Dell is obnoxious, rude, loud, and annoying. But ignoring speeding and reckless driving through a residential neighborhood, has he ever been violent except in self defense against a lynch mob? (For which mob I must confess to having significant--though not total--sympathies given the conditions in their neighborhood.)

If the judge really believes he poses a danger and/or is mentally unstable, he shouldn't be released to the public. Have the psych eval first. If he is a danger, hold him. If not, fine him and/or let him spend a couple of nights in jail for disrupting court and then cut him lose until his next court date.

The requirement for a speedy trial is exactly to keep a cloud and whatever limits on personal rights are necessary pending trial to the shortest time frame possible. But even with that, we can be talking about weeks and months to get to trial and resolve issues.

Let us remember how long Clark Aposhian was denied not only his RKBA, but his professional livelihood based on RKBA over a minor crime for which he was ultimately acquitted. Probably not today, but sometime in the not distant future we need to work to better protect RKBA between charges being brought and trial being held. We should not routinely infringe RKBA in such cases, but only in that relatively small number of cases where a defendant is legitimately believed to pose a danger, but is still eligible for bail.

Charles
 
#4 ·
If you back up, This story will tell you why he was in handcuffs...Contempt of the clown in the black robe....

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1936735-155/super-dell-schanze-handcuffed-after-interrupting

Wells had just told a man with a lengthy arrest record on drug charges, and who was in court for alleged possession of stolen ammunition, that she would release him from custody pending his trial, but he had to agree not to possess dangerous weapons or ammunition. If he was going to live with his father as planned, then the father also had to remove those items from his home, Wells said.

That prompted Schanze to stand up and interrupt.

"Your honor that's totally unconstitutional," he said. "How can you force his father to take his weapons from his house?"
I "totally" Agree with Dell on this!
 
#5 ·
RustyShackleford said:
If you back up, This story will tell you why he was in handcuffs...Contempt of the clown in the black robe....

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1936735-155/super-dell-schanze-handcuffed-after-interrupting

Wells had just told a man with a lengthy arrest record on drug charges, and who was in court for alleged possession of stolen ammunition, that she would release him from custody pending his trial, but he had to agree not to possess dangerous weapons or ammunition. If he was going to live with his father as planned, then the father also had to remove those items from his home, Wells said.

That prompted Schanze to stand up and interrupt.

"Your honor that's totally unconstitutional," he said. "How can you force his father to take his weapons from his house?"
I "totally" Agree with Dell on this!
You agree that he should disrupt the court...? Furthermore, that guy doesn't have to live with his father, he can go elsewhere. I have no problem with the conditions the judge required for his release.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top