|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
OH: Cleveland Police Won't Give Burglary Victim His Gun Back
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
A Cleveland man is going after the city of Cleveland's police department for what's rightfully— Constitutionally-stamped— his. That's the gist of a recent lawsuit filed on behalf of Brian Bridges against the city in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas court. Following a 2015 justified shooting, Bridges claims the city are still holding onto his firearm and wont' return it even though the case is closed.
|
| Comment by:
xqqme
(5/9/2017)
|
What would be nice to see:
Judge: "You will bring Mr. Bridges' firearm to this court this afternoon, and you will, in my presence, allow him to inspect it for damage. We will then travel to the Police Department firing range, where he will be given the opportunity to fire the weapon to confirm that it is still functional. If all is well, Mr. Bridges will then take possession of his property and be dismissed, and he will be allowed to travel to his home with his weapon unmolested. If, however, it is determined that his property has been damaged in any way, the City of Cleveland will provide him with a brand new firearm of the same make and model, 200 rounds ammunition, and the sum of $50,000 in damages... do I make myself clear?" |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
