Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Will CT Police Follow Orders o Confiscate?

For the court to order a warrant it would have to be initiated by the state or police. Right now they are not. The reason they are not I already outlined.

If we had more gun owners fight with their heads rather then jump to video game dreams, we would all be a lot better off and ahead of the game.

The video game dreamers aren't NRA members.

Seems to me that LEO'S have quite a bit of discretion in executing warrants already. Lots of dead-beat-dads and mom warrants sitting in drawers.

Outstanding warrants would make driving around far more exciting. Better not get pulled over for speeding...

Authorizing because a judge has been given "evidence" that a crime or criminal activity is/has taken place.

Yes. Authorizing for that reason. Not mandating that it be served. Whoever asked for the warrant can then choose to let it sit in a drawer, or tear it up, if he changes his mind about it.

...can you give me some examples of where the courts have given the police the sole authority to not execute a search warrant because they didn't feel like it as it would relate to this specific topic being discussed ? Remember, the type and origin of this search warrant not coming from police activity, but from the state.

RDFinn you are putting the cart in front of the horse. So far the State nor the Police have initiated any warrants. They have not done so because they know the ramifications of doing so.

However you are correct if a warrant were issued it would be executed by whoever they could muster up to do so.

Yes, I was stating a couple of pages back what could possibly happen if say LEO's went to a home where the resident refused the officers inquiry or not to their satisfaction and what could happen if the LEO's of the state grew balls and told the "state" to GFY. There is no F'ing way a LEO is going to tell the AG/Prosecutor etc etc to go [bleep] themselves after being handed a search warrant to search XYZ homes.

The search warrant is still a choice, not an order. Will CT find enough troopers to serve and execute those and confiscation warrants? Sure they will. Some won't, perhaps, but only some and not all. It would take all to have the state completely balk, and there will be enough to follow orders no matter what the orders happen to be. History proves that painfully true.

I'm just trying to explain to you that the warrant is an authorization of action by the police, not a mandate of action. This is very basic material, and doesn't require specific examples. A hypothetical example would be a cop asks for a search warrant, receives it, and then gets solid evidence that the subject of the warrant was not involved in the crime he was investigating, so it doesn't get executed.

This. Exactly right.

Yes, that happens often, but that doesn't answer my question. Go back and read my specific example as it relates to this topic. Heck, I can [bleep] can a warrant easily by saying any number of things, but that's not what we are talking about here Hawk. Remember, cops did not initiate this order, the state did.

We must be talking past each other, then.

RDFinn is saying that you are comparing a warrant initiated by a police department, when he is saying the department isn't initiating it, the State is. To this he is 100% correct that the issued warrant will be executed by whoever the State Police can muster to do so.

I should have said "I believe what RDFinn is saying".

......and it will not be up for a vote........

Correct

It is exactly what I was saying. Thank you sir.

But we are not at that point yet. Because they (State Dem's) do not have faith in the ability to muster said State Troopers. Nor are they prepared for the blood shed.

Nor are they ready for a court challenge with the first confiscation attempt that will results in a plea to the court for an immediate temporary injunction of the the law and/or confiscations pending full judicial review.