Further developments in Quartzite, Az; firearms confiscated now!
 

This stunning action is taking place in Quartzsite, Ariz., where Town Councilman Joe Winslow
has prompted the seizure of guns from local gem dealer and online entrepreneur Michael
Roth because Roth allegedly glared at the councilman, blocked his entrance to Town Hall and called him a "turd."

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=326601

But Winslow indicated his biggest concern is the firearm issue.

Justice of the Peace Karen Slaughter ordered the confiscation of firearms from Michael Roth
and banned him from public meetings at Town Hall in Quartzsite, Ariz.

"I don't like firearms," he said. "I have nothing against anyone who wants to own a gun for
protection, hunting, recreation, whatever, that's their business. But you bring the two things
together – the fixed-minded people who for whatever reason are aggressive and confrontational
by nature and bring in firearms and it's a bad combination. As far as name-calling goes, that's
sophomoric. I just ignore it."

Ironically, despite Winslow's self-expressed aversion to firearms and desire to confiscate Roth's
weapons, the councilman admitted he had recently gone gun shopping for himself.

"I felt it necessary for me to go out and purchase a gun, and I did," Winslow said. "I went out
and bought a 12-gauge shotgun. I don't like it. I don't like being in that position."
************************************************** ***
Not only is he (Winslow) a liar as evidenced by the highlighted portion quoted above; i.e. if the
'fact' that he was called a "turd" didn't upset him, then why swear out a restraining order?,
but he is also a hypocrite to the nth degree, because while denying Roth his own constitutional
right to bear arms, he then goes out and purchases his own.

Nothing worse than a lying lefty hypocrite in power.

Hmmm......time to get rid of ALL lying lefty hypocrites in power......

Well, they just lost that county a few million dollars.....

Im sure lawyers have been burning his phone up....

Quartsite Arizona is a little one stop light town in the middle of nowhere. Their claim to fame is the yearly rock & mineral show.

Passing through to visit the Tomb of Hi Jolly (& his camels), I'd say most residents are living on the fringe, and consider their town to be part of the last frontier. (Or maybe the desert heat got to the ol' timers)

It's amazing to me that news is so slow that World News Daily would be reporting on this. Or maybe I've just become inured to the idiocyrancies of the unique people of Arizona.

Not likely.......since the county won't be sued!!!
 

**********************************************
It was the town council member and the justice of the peace that 'conspired' to step on and squash
this man's constitutional rights. The sheriff's deputy that was sent out to remove the firearms
was 'only doing his duty' and Roth to suddenly remember he'd bought a gun at a garage
sale and then to call them up and request that they come back and get it.......not very likely
that the county will be a party to whatever lawsuit might ensue. Besides, the town is likely
broke anyway; they just don't know it yet. You don't get these types of shenanigans unless
someone(s) been tapping the city coffers for personal use.

They play with fire. Many people could end up very DEAD, very fast. It is probably time to take a stand, an armed stand.:grumble:

Good luck.

justice of the peace works for the county dont they?

Maybe that's what the councilman is trying to prevent.

.

Does a JP and a councilman have the authority to disarm a citizen??
I am under the impression that local laws do not trump state laws, at least that's how it is in Nebraska.
Towns have to follow the state constitution.

Disarm those who oppose you and suddenly they are the tragic victims of a home invasion....no suspects.

If a restraining order was filed, taking the guns is legal


http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/brady2.html

He needs to read the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, fast. The Constitution has a lot of info in it about powerful folks like him. He may figure out that his $300 a month is not quite enough.:cool:

"Guilty until proven innocent". The new american way.:(

Maybe YOU have an explanation then for the apparent
 

**************************************
"double-standard" taken by the councilman who then went out and bought a shotgun......????
Seems to me, that if I lived in that town (or was even on planning on traveling through it),
I'd just have to head over to the local justice of the peace's office and file me a little protection
order of my own against said councilmember.......as I'm afeard for my life with him running
loose with a scattergun.....might take everyone out who looks cross-eyed at him......especially with his PTSD that he's already claimed ......

Originally Posted by naturelover
Maybe that's what the councilman is trying to prevent

No, it sounds like that is what he is trying to *provoke*...

last sentence,last page...He Loved Big Brother....

It may be legal to disarm someone as a precousion of a restraning order. (I wonder if that's constitutionality has been challenged yet?)

The thing is that he seems to have said to the media that the restraining order was done to disarm him. He has the right to sue an if a jury thinks that it played out that way then they may still see it as a rights violation.

LMAO!!!....Turd...:hysterical::pound::hysterical::pound:

It wouldnt let me open the link. But calling someone a turd is no need to get all worked up in my book.
However you may have to ask the people I've called turds....LOL

If you haven't yet, listen to the court hearing. The councilman says that he is not worried about what will happen to him, he will be the one in jail. He also refuese the judges offer to keep him away from his home saying he has a shotgun for that. He tells the judge that he just wants him disarmed an has filed to disarm several other people in his political party. (the Tea Party)

He never shows the judge any threat to him an the judge even questions how legal it is to disarm him but does it anyway.

Then it's the judge who is at fault

If you go east a little ways the federal courts have ruled it unconstitutional to take firearms as part of a restraning order. Anyone who had any part of taking the firearms can and should be named in a lawsuite. This includes the deputy. The I was just following orders did not work at Nuremburg(sp) and it should not work in this country.
Steve

So someone has fought it in federal court at some point. Do you know the federal case it was an when?

It was an appeals court ruling in the next judical district east between 5 and 10 years ago. I do not know the case name. It was never appealed to the SCOTUS by the local DA. I guess he was told not to as it would wipe it out in all of the US.
Steve