Federally indicted man loses guns and ammo

[Hershmeister]

The wall street journal had an interesting article about medicare fraud and an indicted california physician who appears quite likely guilty. http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/how-agents-hunt-for-fraud-in-trove-of-medicare-data-1408069802?mobile=y In addition to posting bond, The ferderal judge ordered him to surrender his guns and ammo: "As the hearing ended, the judge ordered Dr. Glazer to surrender his guns and instructed agents to return to his house for them. Dr. Glazer gave up the AR-15 rifle and ammunition, but said the other guns were no longer in his possession." How is this legal?

[Hershmeister]

Just found the answer - a felony indictment causes you to lose ownership. Wow.

[macville]

Just found the answer - a felony indictment causes you to lose ownership. Wow.

 

How is that not a violation of the 14th amendment? Or is that just just like most of our other laws that ignore the constitution?

[Photoguy67]

Name one gun law that is actually constitutional. I don't mean its upheld by the liberal courts, but actually adheres to the wording of the second amendment. "shall not be infringed".

[Hershmeister]

I was surprised to see this as well -i suppose i can understand a violent felony indictment for say murder, you might just not want the perp running around with his guns, but this certainly seems an possible abuse area. Amazingly, the doc retains his medical license without a hitch. Lol

[wileecoyote]

I actually don't have a problem with all felony convictions resulting in forfeiture of your 2A rights. Felons are criminals, and criminals should have to pay a steep price for their crimes, thus normally honest folks that are occasionally tempted to cross the line for seemingly innocent reasons might think twice before doing so. Teens and drug use are a great example. I have mentored several teens that were busted on possession charges which they (and unfortunately some parents and our president) felt were no big deal, but when I explained how one felony conviction after age 18 would disqualify them from ever owning guns, they were quickly motivated to dump the drugs and they have been clean ever since. They are now accomplished shooters, honor students, and always test clean. What I do have a problem with is a few truly minor crimes being classified as felonies, which needs to be fixed. And if you are forced to forfeit your guns due to a conviction, the law should not be allowed to confiscate or keep your property, you should be allowed to sell, gift, transfer, or donate it within a reasonable time so that your financial investment is not stolen or squandered. Only time you should lose the property is if you acquired it via illegal methods such as theft or use of drug money to buy it.

[Oh Shoot]

Not sure under what legal basis the federal judge pulled his guns -- not familiar with whatever part of federal code allows that. Anyone else?

 

Perhaps he was enforcing a provision under Kali law at same time?

 

- OS

Edited August 18, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[macville]

I actually don't have a problem with all felony convictions resulting in forfeiture of your 2A rights. Felons are criminals, and criminals should have to pay a steep price for their crimes, thus normally honest folks that are occasionally tempted to cross the line for seemingly innocent reasons might think twice before doing so. Teens and drug use are a great example. I have mentored several teens that were busted on possession charges which they (and unfortunately some parents and our president) felt were no big deal, but when I explained how one felony conviction after age 18 would disqualify them from ever owning guns, they were quickly motivated to dump the drugs and they have been clean ever since. They are now accomplished shooters, honor students, and always test clean. What I do have a problem with is a few truly minor crimes being classified as felonies, which needs to be fixed. And if you are forced to forfeit your guns due to a conviction, the law should not be allowed to confiscate or keep your property, you should be allowed to sell, gift, transfer, or donate it within a reasonable time so that your financial investment is not stolen or squandered. Only time you should lose the property is if you acquired it via illegal methods such as theft or use of drug money to buy it.

 

Why should someone who is convicted of something that has nothing to do with guns/weapons/violence lose their right to bear arms? At WORSE, when you have fulfilled your sentence for non weapon/violent crimes your rights should automatically be restored.

[Hershmeister]

Pleaae note that the guns are prohibited due to the INDICTMENT, not a conviction. Certainly ripe for potential abuse since its not too hard to get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="Oh Shoot" post="1180778" timestamp="1408342966"]Not sure under what legal basis the federal judge pulled his guns -- not familiar with whatever part of federal code allows that. Anyone else? Perhaps he was enforcing a provision under Kali law at same time? - OS[/quote] Second question on form 4473 https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

[JayC]

It's standard bail conditions...  Many judges require you to turn in all firearms as a condition of bail.  Happens here in TN all the time too.

Not sure under what legal basis the federal judge pulled his guns -- not familiar with whatever part of federal code allows that. Anyone else?

 

Perhaps he was enforcing a provision under Kali law at same time?

 

- OS

 

[JayC]

11b only covers you buying firearms, not you keeping firearms you already own.

 

Second question on form 4473 https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

 

[Oh Shoot]

Second question on form 4473 https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

 

11b only covers you buying firearms, not you keeping firearms you already own.

 

Yup. Doesn't answer my question. I know it's not in 18 USC 922, thought maybe was in some section I'm not familiar with.

 

And of course 4473 is not all based on actual US Code anyway. Question 11a isn't backed up by federal law at all, as pointed out by Scalia in a dissenting opinion recently. It's an ATF made-up rule.

 

- OS

Edited August 18, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[midtennchip]

It is under the Federal Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. 3142(c)(1)( B)(viii)).  When you are under an indictment, there are all kinds of rights that are "surrendered."  Passport, travel outside certain areas, curfews, periodic reporting to the court, etc.  In many cases, you have to pay just to stay out of jail.  

 

NOTE:  The citation will not show properly in this forum (the emoticon is NOT a proper citation)!! :pleased:

Edited August 18, 2014 by midtennchip

[Oh Shoot]

It is under the Federal Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. 3142(c)(1)( B)(viii)).  When you are under an indictment, there are all kinds of rights that are "surrendered."  Passport, travel outside certain areas, curfews, periodic reporting to the court, etc.  In many cases, you have to pay just to stay out of jail.  

 

NOTE:  The citation will not show properly in this forum (the emoticon is NOT a proper citation)!! :pleased:

 

you have to edit to space ( c ) and ( b )  or you get the (c) and B) symbols on this forum, or you can disable emoticons in post, but they show back up in quotes unless the followup poster does too. Very irritating especially when pasting statutes.

 

Thanks for that reference Chip, I put it in my "legal reference section".

 

Here's direct link:

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3142

 

C,1,B,viii is the specific part about firearms.

 

- OS

Edited August 18, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="midtennchip" post="1180915" timestamp="1408397370"]It is under the Federal Bail Reform Act (18 U.S.C. 3142(c)(1)( B)(viii)). When you are under an indictment, there are all kinds of rights that are "surrendered." Passport, travel outside certain areas, curfews, periodic reporting to the court, etc. In many cases, you have to pay just to stay out of jail. NOTE: The citation will not show properly in this forum (the emoticon is NOT a proper citation)!! :pleased:[/quote] Curious or your thoughts on the constitutionality of "natural constitutional rights" being surrendered. Has this act evet been tested?

[midtennchip]

Curious or your thoughts on the constitutionality of "natural constitutional rights" being surrendered. Has this act evet been tested?

Yes, bail issues have been tested many times. The 8th Amendment prohibits "excessive" bail, so even that allows for bail (even though a conviction has not yet occurred). The issue of what is "excessive" is the focus of most cases.

[RobertNashville]

Not that it will make any difference but it seems to me that there is something innately wrong with a person losing his/her rights only because he has been accused of a crime.  Obviously, bail is both constitutional and necessary to assure the person shows up for trial but loosing all sorts of rights before there has even been a trial is going too far IMHO.

 

Even worse, it seems that the reverse happens once one is convicted; our legal system seems far too eager to release from prison those found guilty of even heinous, violent crimes rather then keeping them in jail for as long as they should be...it all seems very backward to me and as I've said before, if someone has committed a crime serious enough that he loses his rights then the crime is serious enough that he should never be released back into society; at least not until he is so old that he can no longer be a threat to society.

[DWARREN123]

Let him keep his guns and pull his medical license.

[Hershmeister]

[quote name="midtennchip" post="1180936" timestamp="1408401564"]Yes, bail issues have been tested many times. The 8th Amendment prohibits "excessive" bail, so even that allows for bail (even though a conviction has not yet occurred). The issue of what is "excessive" is the focus of most cases.[/quote] Bail arguments i understand, but removal of 2nd amendment rights prior to trial would seem appropriate only for violent felony indictments. I suppose no indictee would really be interested i fighting this issue since they would have their hands full otherwise with their indictment.

[midtennchip]

Bail is a payment to avoid siting in jail. If you cannot afford bail, you lose ALL rights. In some cases, bail is either too high to be afforded by most people or not available at all. The Constitution recognized this from the very beginning. I understand people thinking that losing rights before being proven guilty is wrong, but it happens in virtually all criminal cases to some degree. And it is just that, a matter of degree.