Featured

The California man's gun was confiscated, apparently as a result of he was a racist group chief

the-california-mans-gun-was-confiscated-apparently-as-a-result-of-he-was-a-racist-group-chief

CBS13 (Sacramento) reports:

It is a new age hate group that preaches violence online. The "Bowl Patrol" has fewer than 100 followers, but the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office says this is enough to take action. The Southern Poverty Law Center told CBS13 that the name "Bowl Patrol" was inspired by Dylann Roof's signature "bowl-cut" hairstyle (racial multiple killer from South Carolina).

(T) The self-proclaimed leader … moderates (ed) the Bowl Cast, a podcast that spits out hateful rhetoric and language … (and was) identified … as … Andrew Casarez ….

"For just over three weeks, our detectives have been investigating Andrew Casarez with several federal agencies," said Lacey Nelson, spokeswoman for the sheriff.

"We have been able to obtain an order to limit the violence against him and a search warrant, and a firearm has been confiscated," Nelson said.

"This warrant is at least the first of its kind in the country. As far as we have received and served it," Nelson said. "He has posted enough racist rhetoric and propaganda on Facebook to fear that his retaliation behavior could become violent." …

The FBI has no police ideology. You will only take action if a person threatens violence or actually commits a crime. But the Sacramento County's sheriff's office wasn't ready to wait.

"Instead of waiting for him to go out and commit violence, ideally they could stop them before they started. But he had a gun in his possession," said Nelson.

If Casarez was actually involved in certain acts of violence or conspired to commit violence, or requested specific acts of violence against certain people, he could certainly be arrested for these crimes (again, whether they are accomplished crimes or a conspiracy or solicitation) Crime). His weapon could then possibly be confiscated, either as evidence or as a condition for pre-judicial release; and some courts have confirmed restrictions on the possession of weapons by persons on trial, particularly when there is a reason to be concerned that the person will be using the weapons illegally. And the TV segment in the story above suggests that Casarez mentioned that a certain (bled) person "still deserves rape and murder," which, in context, could at least warrant a search and possibly an indictment charge (although everything depends on what Casarez said that is not clear).

But nothing in the quoted statements from Sheriff's Office suggests that the "order to limit gun violence" and the confiscation of weapons are the result of a crime he has committed (including conspiracy or solicitation); it sounds as if the basis for the "order to limit arms" is his political rhetoric. I found an extract from the order request online, although I cannot vouch for its authenticity (I am trying to get the court file myself):

And although there is a specific theory about why he is likely to commit violence, I don't think this can be enough. A person's hateful and non-violent rhetoric – be it hatred of blacks and Jews, as Casarez seems to advocate, or police officers, capitalists, or government officials – is in itself the exercise of first-amendment rights, and the government cannot take revenge against it such a speech by using it as the basis for denying rights to the second amendment. While the government can use language as evidence of what you did or why you did it (a common use in criminal proceedings), I don't think it can use it as evidence of future dangerousness sufficient to give someone a constitutional right to refuse.

In any case, I look forward to blogging about the gun control file when I receive it and updating my analysis as necessary. Please keep in mind that what I wrote above is based on the limited information I have now.

UPDATE: A commentator pointed out what the gun ban regulation is supposed to be; the law enforcement statement says

I remain skeptical that this speculation based on Casarez’s speech is sufficient to justify the limitation of his constitutional rights. (If he actually tried or conspired to violate California’s gun laws related to the AR-15, they can be prosecuted for it, but I find that they apparently didn’t.)

0 Comments
Share

labsurlab

Reply your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked*