Why not a civil lawsuit? They are in possession of his property, they abused his civil rights - those are two things that you can sue for damages and the lawyer gets paid by them.....
Civil suit would get the property back, any loss in wages, and payment for pain and suffering. It would also open the door for more in the future so the LEO's would have a good reason to stop doing it.

Ominivision1 wrote:

As if New York couldn't get any worst, it's inching closer now with Gun Detectors!! www.nbcnewyork.com/new...07933.html

And they've introduced a micro-stamping bill.........again.....for the 4th year in a row !!!


I say let NYC have their way !!!
Let them pass their law banning guns.
Completely rid the city of all firearms and I mean all firearms !!!
No special situations, no armed private security, no armed bodyguards for officials, and most importantly cops shouldn't have them either.
When chaos in-sues no national guard.

What's good for one is good for all.....right ???

All firearms must go period...... lets see how long it takes for them to proclaim the 2nd amendment their right.

Oh man not again with that stupid micro-stamp thing. Tried that out here how many times? FAIL.

Here's a thought- try enforcing the law's already ON the books, instead of making more junk new one's. Guess that would make too much sense.

Out here- politicians can't stop making new laws, there's so many backed up on the floor that bury the old one's already on the books it's chaos. They also passed a mandatory condom's for porn stars bill- you heard me, no lie. Can't pass a budget or lower taxes or keep thugs in jail but...we can make and pass stupid laws.

The problem isn't guns, IT'S THE LIBERAL REVOLVING DOOR JUSTICE SYSTEM.

Ominivision1 wrote:

Yup, NYC is becoming more of a nanny state lately with Bloomberg at the helm. Just last week on the news their was talk of limiting booze selling businesses, bars, restaurants, etc until the backlash came in from the businesses. www.nypost.com/p/news/...8bXpgkrapO

Quote::

The city Health Department pursued reducing the “density’’ of alcohol outlets through its Partnership for a Healthier New York initiative. The campaign is being coordinated through the department’s fundraising arm, the Fund for Public Health Read more: www.nypost.com/p/news/...z1jpfW2P00

a HEALTHYER ny....BUWAHAHAHAHA...and, another "fund" cough-slushfund-cough. "Funds", what a joke.

First of all, let me get on my soapbox and rant.

A few years ago a challenge to the D.C. law wound up being argued before the United States Supreme Court. The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, who sued the district after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. A lower court threw the D.C. statute out, ruling it to be unreasonable and in violation of Heller's rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The district appealed, and for the first time in our nation's history, the high court is preparing to rule on what the framers actually meant when they wrote the Second Amendment.

For many, that meaning has long been clear as glass: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Two clauses that some smart editor may have made into two sentences -- the first of which calls for the establishment of a "well regulated militia," thought by most authorities to be the present National Guard, and the second, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," which needs no interpretation at all. Beginning in the 1960s, however, left-leaning legal theorists and postmodern politicians began putting forth the notion that the Second Amendment had nothing to do with individual rights, that it instead was intended simply to make sure that the state-regulated militia members had guns. This ridiculous reading flew in the face of much that was written by Jefferson, Washington and the other men of action who bought our country's independence with blood and ink and gunpowder, but scant attention was paid.

Guns kill people, the revisionists said. We have the police to protect us, and the truths of 1776 have no place in 21st century society. Our SCOTUS took it to tackle the Second Amendment issue head on. To begin with, five justices clearly indicated that the "well regulated militia" clause is indeed separate from the "keep and bear arms" clause, and that alone is a huge step forward. This is where I see it smack in the face of NYC as well as NJ gun laws. Since its ratification by congress on September 21, 1789, the Second Amendment has never before been interpreted as to its actual meaning and intent by the Supreme Court until the Heller case.

New York's Sullivan Act seems a likely next target for challenge by downtrodden gun owners whose rights have been violated for far too long. But one question I have to ask is why is nothing being done from the Federal level end of this towards NY and NJ, Ill??

Let me use an example of that last sentence, the state of Arizona passes laws to keep the illegals out and the Feds get all bent out of shape and file a lawsuit against Arizona. But on the other hand, something that is written in the constitution is blatantly ignored by the feds who do nothing to stop the encroachment of our rights.

HEAR HERE!

Omi, have you stolen Stovey's shoes?

And: why do they put the "soap"-label upsite down on such a box?

Aloysius wrote:

Omi, have you stolen Stovey's shoes? And: why do they put the "soap"-label upsite down on such a box?

I do have a pair like that huh...

I just noticed that label dealio good eye!