[TheLaw]

Interesting article. Quite concerning to me.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/01/...un-license-due-to-blog-about-tucson-shooting/

A blog threatening members of Congress in the wake of the Tucson, Arizona shooting has prompted Arlington police to temporarily suspend the firearms license of an Arlington man.

 

[VolGrad]

Not as concerning to me. He has not been arrested or charged with anything. He is simply under investigation and his license has been suspended until the investigation is complete.

In his blog Corcoran writes, "It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot indiscriminately. Target only politicians and their staff and leave regular citizens alone."

If that's in fact what he wrote on his blog that sounds credible enough to warrant police action IMO. Had the police taken action on the AZ shooter after he openly made threats (which the police admitted they were aware of beforehand) the tragedy in AZ might have been prevented. It could have saved a few lives, including that innocent 9yo girl born on 9/11. That could just as easily have been one of out daughters.

Just because this guy likes guns and posts stuff on the Internet doesn't make him one of my "buddies". Let the police investigate and decide if his threat was credible or just him venting in some really inappropriate manner.

 

[TheLaw]

I have no real issue with them temporarily taking his permit, not that it will stop him if he was to choose to do something horrible with is firearms. My issue is that they took his firearms as well....

 

[VolGrad]

I have no real issue with them temporarily taking his permit, not that it will stop him if he was to choose to do something horrible with is firearms. My issue is that they took his firearms as well....

I missed that part. I do have issue with that. I assume "have been removed" means LE confiscated them. There's an outside chance they asked a family member or friend to take possession/control of them during the investigation. The article is unclear. I have heard of this happening .... police not wanting to take them but asking someone else to take temporarly control over them.

 

[Don Glock]

it's a crime to threaten to kill anyone. what did this guy expect when he splashed these threats all over an internet blog? what a 'tard. lol

 

[VolGrad]

it's a crime to threaten to kill anyone. what did this guy expect when he splashed these threats all over an internet blog? what a 'tard. lol

Agreed.

 

[jlw]

The article makes no mention of any hearings. Was there due process of law? I'm not comfortable with LE simply suspending a license/permit and confiscating property on their own accord. Just because we are investigating something does not excuse us from due process requirements.

That being said, the issue will be whether is writing is speech or an act. Provided he actually wrote what is being reported, that was something pretty stupid to put out there.

 

[TheLaw]

it's a crime to threaten to kill anyone. what did this guy expect when he splashed these threats all over an internet blog? what a 'tard. lol

I Agree with your statement and as usual we have a news report that leaves out tons of useful information, however, based on the information that is presented, he had his license and firearms confiscated without due process.

 

[TheLaw]

Here is information I did not see in the original posting.

Corcoran, who has no criminal history, has not been arrested and does not face any charges. Arlington police saying they are working with the Capitol Police in their investigation, and members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation have been alerted.

So, he was not arrested or charged with anything at this point. They came to investigate, suspended his carry license and took his firearms, according to the news report.

 

[DWinter]

While I agree with the posts above about an investigation and due process, people also need to remember that with Free Speech, comes a certain amount of responsibility. I'll withhold further judgement without more details. There are many overbearing loudmouths out there that I wouldn't mind shutting up myself. It just touches a nerve because firearms rights are involved. Like I've always said, If you're gonna be stupid, you better be tough. (or rich)

 

[__jb]

You have to think about what you are posting nowadays...

Blogs and forums that used to be considered obscure are now mainstream... and easy to find...

 

[Stuka]

Can't agree with that guys statement!!! but whats next? Forum Gestapo's? Are they really going to read every forum and read every post on youtube? I don't know all the facts about the case. But we have too many people making statements on the internet just to get a rise out of people.

 

[VolGrad]

But we have too many people making statements on the internet just to get a rise out of people.

I agree 100% with this statement. The problem is often they want to get a rise out of someone, they get it (as in get arrested or at least investigated), then get bent out of shape about it. What did they expect to happen?

 

[Rowdie]

While I agree with the posts above about an investigation and due process, people also need to remember that with Free Speech, comes a certain amount of responsibility. I'll withhold further judgement without more details. There are many overbearing loudmouths out there that I wouldn't mind shutting up myself. It just touches a nerve because firearms rights are involved. Like I've always said, If you're gonna be stupid, you better be tough. (or rich)

Agreed!

 

[TheLaw]

Again, I'm not condoning what this guy did. It was clearly wrong but to allow local authorities to just come in and take his stuff, according to the new article, is wrong. It's also a slippery slope.

 

[Sheepdog808]

When someone makes a threat of death or physical harm openly in public or on a public forum certain things need to be considered:
1. Is the threat creditable?
2. does that persons have the ability to carry out that threat?
3. does the intended victim feel threatened?
Does it make it right that his guns were temporarily confiscated during the investigation? Depend who you talk to. After the Tuson incident, I feel Law Enforcement did what they had to do to error on the side of caution. From a LE stand point, no one wants to be the one responsible for another tragic incident because they failed to act.

I 100% agree w/ what __jb said "You have to think about what you are posting nowadays..."

 

[TheLaw]

When someone makes a threat of death or physical harm openly in public or on a public forum certain things need to be considered:
1. Is the threat creditable?
2. does that persons have the ability to carry out that threat?
3. does the intended victim feel threatened?
Does it make it right that his guns were temporarily confiscated during the investigation? Depend who you talk to. After the Tuson incident, I feel Law Enforcement did what they had to do to error on the side of caution. From a LE stand point, no one wants to be the one responsible for another tragic incident because they failed to act.

I 100% agree w/ what __jb said "You have to think about what you are posting nowadays..."

Where do we draw the line? What is the threshold for free speech versus a threat? If I say I'm going to beat you up can the authorities come take my weapons? What if I say I hate (enter person's name here) and wish they were dead. Is that enough of a threat to investigate me, taking my firearms while they do?

 

[Don Glock]

I Agree with your statement and as usual we have a news report that leaves out tons of useful information, however, based on the information that is presented, he had his license and firearms confiscated without due process.

i don't know, i think when you break a law by threatening to kill folks, they may have the right to confiscate your guns lol. just a guess. i'm not a lawyer, nor do i threaten people lol

 

[VolGrad]

Where do we draw the line? What is the threshold for free speech versus a threat? If I say I'm going to beat you up can the authorities come take my weapons? What if I say I hate (enter person's name here) and wish they were dead. Is that enough of a threat to investigate me, taking my firearms while they do?

Good points.

Without going into hypotheticals ... sticking only to this particular case ... the statement he made to me FOR SURE shows questionable judgement but maybe not a credible threat himself.

What complicates it is the fact he ommitted the WHO in the statement "target only .... ".

Is he he saying HE will only target the individuals he enumerated when he starts shooting?
Is he saying THE AZ SHOOTER should have only targeted .....?
Is he suggesting OTHERS should rise up and target only .... ?

That's what needs to be investigated. The Police need to figure out if he is inciting violence, planning violence, or just an idiot behind a keyboard. Should his weapons have been confiscated during this proces? Tough call.

Kind of like no-knock warrants. If you announce your presence the people inside have a chance to flush the evidence or perhaps hide/flee. If you don't announce your presence you risk getting shot upon entry =or= you find the evidence you need to prosecute.

Either way the police have to decide on which side to ERR. Do they violate his civil liberties by confiscating his weapons during the investigation (and perhaps save some lives)? =OR= Do they simply investigate (let him keep the guns) and risk him shooting up some folks in the meantime .... knowing he is under the microscope? Either way they are the bad guys and the media and gun forums will have a field day with it.

Take this back a step ... the police in AZ knew the actual shooter had made threats but he was allowed to go about his merry way and we all know how that turned out. Many (myself included) now wonder why no one (parents, UNIV officials, Police, etc.) was able to predict and perhaps prevent this senseless violence knowing he had made threats, credible or not.

..... and I still haven't read if this guy's (the guy in the OP story) guns were actually confiscated or allowed to be removed by a family member or friend. Was if mandatory or suggested?

 

[jlw]

i don't know, i think when you break a law by threatening to kill folks, they may have the right to confiscate your guns lol. just a guess. i'm not a lawyer, nor do i threaten people lol

"No person shall be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law..."

Barring an immediate exigency, they should have petitioned the court for an emergency hearing on his carry license adn perhaps a mental evalutation. They may have done so, but the articles don't indicate it.