Feds demand turnover of gun scope app info - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Feds demand turnover of gun scope app info

  1. #11
    Distinguished Member DGOrlando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,065

    Feds demand turnover of gun scope app info

    Quote Originally Posted by brownie View Post
    Suggestions of possible alternatives? More importantly, what violation of rights do you believe are being violated on this matter?
    The fourth amendment comes to mind.

    I’m Astounded at how easily people are willing to roll over, and let the gubmint nibble at the apple.

    Many on this forum pontificate on the 2nd amendments, “shall not be infringed,” phrase, yet are okay with infringements on other constitutional rights.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by DGOrlando; 09-07-2019 at 10:00 AM.

  2. #12
    Senior Member AirForceShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sarasota Fla / Huntersville N.C.
    Posts
    1,463
    What he said ^^^^^^^

    AFS
    There is something charming about the sound of bullets-----George Washington

  3. #13
    Distinguished Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Ocala
    Posts
    2,898
    I believe the right to privacy may be violated. I think the Court, upon proper objection by the parties from whom the information is requested, and I do believe they should make the objection, should examine the request to see if there is a more narrowly tailored means of getting the government the information it needs without exposing the identities and other information to which, absent some proof a crime has been committed, it is not entitled. Trial courts make those determinations all the time, and when the scope of discovery is overbroad, limit discovery to protect the rights of individuals who are not parties to the action. Just because some government agency wants information does not mean it is entitled to that information, a trial court, and perhaps an appellate court will ultimately decide the issue.
    Last edited by ArthurDent; 09-07-2019 at 10:34 AM.
    "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt

  4. Remove Advertisements
    FloridaConcealedCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #14
    Distinguished Member brownie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Superstition Mtns, Az
    Posts
    53,684
    Quote Originally Posted by DGOrlando View Post
    The fourth amendment comes to mind.

    I’m Astounded at how easily people are willing to roll over, and let the gubmint nibble at the apple.

    Many on this forum pontificate on the 2nd amendments, “shall not be infringed,” phrase, yet are okay with infringements on other constitutional rights.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    The apps database belongs to the app, not the user. He's just using their app with their consent. So how does that affect the 4th relative personal papers?
    The mind is the limiting factor

    https://www.youtube.com/user/azqkr

    The lion does not even bother to turn his head when he hears the small dog barking..

    Stay Sharp

    Brownie

  6. #15
    Distinguished Member brownie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Superstition Mtns, Az
    Posts
    53,684
    Quote Originally Posted by ArthurDent View Post
    I believe the right to privacy may be violated. I think the Court, upon proper objection by the parties from whom the information is requested, and I do believe they should make the objection, should examine the request to see if there is a more narrowly tailored means of getting the government the information it needs without exposing the identities and other information to which, absent some proof a crime has been committed, it is not entitled. Trial courts make those determinations all the time, and when the scope of discovery is overbroad, limit discovery to protect the rights of individuals who are not parties to the action. Just because some government agency wants information does not mean it is entitled to that information, a trial court, and perhaps an appellate court will ultimately decide the issue.
    And that takes forever to get through the courts. The information is time sensitive. It's a plan, but it's just one plan of many. And no matter what plan is offered, someone somewhere will believe it's a violation of their rights.

    My suspicion is even if adjudicated in favor of the gov, people will still whine about their rights being violated.
    The mind is the limiting factor

    https://www.youtube.com/user/azqkr

    The lion does not even bother to turn his head when he hears the small dog barking..

    Stay Sharp

    Brownie

  7. #16
    Distinguished Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Ocala
    Posts
    2,898
    Quote Originally Posted by brownie View Post
    And that takes forever to get through the courts. The information is time sensitive. It's a plan, but it's just one plan of many. And no matter what plan is offered, someone somewhere will believe it's a violation of their rights.

    My suspicion is even if adjudicated in favor of the gov, people will still whine about their rights being violated.
    If the government wants the information fast, it shouldn’t request it in a manner which opens it up to a prolonged delay. The attorneys working for the government are not stupid, they know how to go about requesting information in a manner not subject to Constitutional question. It’s only when the government overreaches that it finds itself in an extended court battle. If it is acting within its Constitutional bounds, the matter will be disposed of quickly by reference to existing precedent.

    And, my suspicion is that if the government loses, it will whine about not being allowed to violate the Constitutional rights of its citizens.
    Last edited by ArthurDent; 09-07-2019 at 12:31 PM.
    "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt

  8. #17
    Distinguished Member Riverpigusmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    14,758
    Quote Originally Posted by brownie View Post
    And that takes forever to get through the courts. The information is time sensitive. It's a plan, but it's just one plan of many. And no matter what plan is offered, someone somewhere will believe it's a violation of their rights.

    My suspicion is even if adjudicated in favor of the gov, people will still whine about their rights being violated.
    Then LET it take forever. That's what due process and judicial oversight of government butthead buerocrats is for. Scroom. Like China hasn't already stolen the app
    Last edited by Riverpigusmc; 09-07-2019 at 08:47 PM.
    "All civilians are targets or dependants" Drill Instructor Boone, Parris Island

    I don't own the clothes I'm wearing..and the road goes on forever..
    NRA Life Member
    Florida Carry Member
    Wilson Combat CQB, Kimber Tactical Pro, S&W J frame

    COTEP #523
    Founding Member

  9. #18
    Distinguished Member brownie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Superstition Mtns, Az
    Posts
    53,684
    I prefer to err on the side of caution. Terrs get the scope and apps, they'll be taking our guys out while due process works itself through the courts. Not something I'll agree on when our guys lives may be put at further risk.

    I also don't want Trump to wait for the courts to make a decision on the wall being in place and host of other matter he's dealing with that would normally run through the courts.
    The mind is the limiting factor

    https://www.youtube.com/user/azqkr

    The lion does not even bother to turn his head when he hears the small dog barking..

    Stay Sharp

    Brownie

  10. #19
    Distinguished Member DGOrlando's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    2,065
    Quote Originally Posted by brownie View Post
    The apps database belongs to the app, not the user. He's just using their app with their consent. So how does that affect the 4th relative personal papers?
    Customers Personal private information that’s collected by businesses is required by law to be protected. It’s not to be shared with disinterested third parties BY LAW. That includes the government.

    Financial organizations are required to send you a Privacy Policy statement every year as a part of that law.

    Private companies with whom One does business is not the governments business, and is protected by the fourth amendment.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #20
    Distinguished Member Riverpigusmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    14,758
    Brownie, the Ruskies have had better NV equipment since I was in, and sell to the highest bidder. Sorry, you're wrong on this one
    "All civilians are targets or dependants" Drill Instructor Boone, Parris Island

    I don't own the clothes I'm wearing..and the road goes on forever..
    NRA Life Member
    Florida Carry Member
    Wilson Combat CQB, Kimber Tactical Pro, S&W J frame

    COTEP #523
    Founding Member

Sposors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •