FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
961 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Disabled Veteran has Firearms Confiscated After Neighbor Makes False Allegations
Glendale, AZ - A disabled Navy veteran has just had all of his firearms confiscated due to false claims made by his next door neighbor.
Rick Bailey, 56, was honorably discharged from the Navy with a medical discharge in 1986. He then worked as a software systems engineer until 2001, when he finally had to retire due to medical reasons.
Bailey was recently involved in a landscaping dispute with his neighbor, Dustin Moss. These verbal disagreements reportedly lasted for several months.
On March 16th, Bailey called the police due to a strong smell of toxic chemicals coming from his neighbors home. Then on March 17th, Moss went to the courthouse and filed for a protective order, stating that Bailey threatened to shoot him quite some time ago.
I personally spoke with Bailey who adamantly denies ever making those threats. Furthermore, there’s no police record of any complaints made against Bailey.
Despite having no evidence other than the allegations made by Moss, Judge Baxter still issued the protective order. The judge also attached a separate injunction to confiscate all of Mr. Bailey’s firearms.


Disabled Veteran has Firearms Confiscated After Neighbor Makes False Allegations - BuzzPo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,109 Posts
Unbelievable.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,805 Posts
I always distrust reporters who present stories this sensational. The truth is usually less clear.

He claims in the title that the allegations were false, yet he has no more evidence that they were false than the judge had that they were true. Given the choice of believing a judge versus believing a reporter, I'll usually go with the judge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
I always distrust reporters who present stories this sensational. The truth is usually less clear.

He claims in the title that the allegations were false, yet he has no more evidence that they were false than the judge had that they were true. Given the choice of believing a judge versus believing a reporter, I'll usually go with the judge.
Art, what happened to innocent until proven otherwise and or burden of proof? Its a dangerous deal indeed when simple accusations lead to the forced disarming of a of a presumably innocent citizen.. And a veteran non the less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
I never tell my neighbors anything.

Well, except, I did tell 'em that "I quit taking my anti-psychotics because I was feeling better, and mostly I'm not so psychotic. Hey, what do you think, do I need to take my meds?.... (they answer .. I ignore it, looking over their shoulder at the family) Your right, I dont think the way I want too, when I take them.."

No I don't take or need meds. Yes I have said this, and it was golden. I don't recommend anyone else say it tho

FWIW neighbors and your guns don't mix sometimes,(you have to determine, it took me over 2 years and still glad i kept it to myself) it may have been a false report to police that turned out to be true in the fact that the vet had guns, but all the same; Vets lose their rights all the time because of stupid ****. But there has to be due process (court) before a loss of rights can occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SAVAGEJIM

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,805 Posts
I wasn't so much commenting on the story as I was on my distrust of the guy telling the story. I distrust reporters.

Innocent till proven guilty wasn't applied when he printed that the cops were called for the neighbor releasing toxic chemicals. The reporter could have been objective and said they were called for a strange smell, or a funny smell, or even an odor. But calling the cops for a funny smell is not nearly as sensational as calling the cops for toxic chemicals, never mind that there is no report the cops found any toxic chemicals. So I conclude the reporter lacks credibility.

When the reporter then launches into this outrageous story which is supposedly based on 'completely false' allegations, when the reporter does not actually know they were completely false, suggests yet another case of reporting the sensational, versus the true. One guy says true, one guy says false .... where does a reporter find justification to run the story under the flag of 'completely false'?

While I do know that there are laws that treat threats as presumed guilty, like domestic violence, I look at any case of outrageous behavior by people who are otherwise known to be intelligent with a grain of salt.

Judges have spent their career understanding law, and often times have seen similar cases before, so they know how to handle them. For a judge to find that this innocent disabled vet needs to be disarmed purely based on false allegations is difficult to believe. Not all judges are good, but reports of outrageous behavior make me suspect the reporter more than the judge. I suspect that if anyone actually looked up the court records for this case (especially given that this guy had a running verbal dispute with his neighbor), I suspect there were words thrown back and forth such that the allegations are something less than 'completely false'.

I do not know anything about this case, so I cannot say. It's just that when a reporter tells the story and it is sensational or outrageous, I assume that the version the reporter is telling is false.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
It's all about doubt, the judge will err on the side of caution.

Could it just be a sop that if a order of protection is issued, then the rp has to request removal of firearms to be added to Pertection order? Then because of that, guns have to be turned over or removed from the house.

Would it also mean a judge decided this case based on other cases mean the judge prejudicely decided the outcome? I'm not a lawyer there may be facts that we are really not aware of. Even Jesus to this day has doubters, it surprises me how often we as people doubt legitimacy of anything. My service counselor had my wife an I watch a marriage video, this is a huge topic in marriages.

Id hope that this is not sensationalized I'd hate to cast doubt on news regarding this stuff. It just re-enforces my stand on neighbors and yourguns don't mix.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SAVAGEJIM

·
Registered
Joined
·
252 Posts
"And this is how you get ants!"

Rule#1- Guns are personal matter ... keep it to your self
 
  • Like
Reactions: ShootingSight

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
When in America do we have the right to remove someones firearms because of this or that? He had no record, no arrest and there was no report from the department of a threat ever being made. Even so, do we start taking firearms away and violating this mans 2nd amendment right to have a gun? Our country is going to crap!

It's all about doubt, the judge will err on the side of caution.

Could it just be a sop that if a order of protection is issued, then the rp has to request removal of firearms to be added to Pertection order? Then because of that, guns have to be turned over or removed from the house.

Would it also mean a judge decided this case based on other cases mean the judge prejudicely decided the outcome? I'm not a lawyer there may be facts that we are really not aware of. Even Jesus to this day has doubters, it surprises me how often we as people doubt legitimacy of anything. My service counselor had my wife an I watch a marriage video, this is a huge topic in marriages.

Id hope that this is not sensationalized I'd hate to cast doubt on news regarding this stuff. It just re-enforces my stand on neighbors and yourguns don't mix.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top