AZ Confiscating Guns Without Due Process

rick-bailey-gun-confiscation-glendale

The good news is that Rick Bailey has had his expensive gun collection returned. The bad news is that he had to fight for it in court in the first place, in spite of never being convicted of any offense.  From the canadafreepress.com: :A retired Navy veteran in Arizona whose gun collection had been seized by Glendale police now has his firearms back, the Second Amendment Foundation revealed today. SAF had intervened in the case of Glendale resident Rick Bailey early last month, taking on funding of the case and working with Chandler, Ariz., attorney Marc J. Victor. Bailey’s case had fired up Second Amendment activists across the country after police confiscated 28 firearms valued at more than $25,000, which Bailey had collected over more than a decade.” . . .

I have not found the offending statute. No doubt it’s in the law that authorizes judges to grant protective orders in private disputes. Marc Victor, Mr. Bailey’s attorney had this to say:

Mr. Bailey is the victim of an overly broad Arizona law allowing judges to immediately strip citizens of their fundamental constitutional rights to peacefully keep and bear arms based on unchallenged and uncorroborated assertions.

Here is an image of the part of the court order requiring Mr. Bailey to surrender his property.

The case made national news, and was covered  by theblaze.com. But how many other cases are there in which the victims do not have the money or connections to fight, or whose circumstances render them less than the perfect example needed to gain national attention?

I have a very close friend to whom this happened and he was completely blindsided by it. He’s fighting it in court, but the process takes thousands of dollars. Some judges have reputations for including the prohibition on owning arms rather promiscuously, some not. But the law gives judges far more power than they should have. Here’s the SAF’s press release:

A retired Navy veteran in Arizona whose gun collection had been seized by Glendale police now has his firearms back, the Second Amendment Foundation revealed today.

SAF had intervened in the case of Glendale resident Rick Bailey early last month, taking on funding of the case and working with Chandler, Ariz., attorney Mark J. Victor. Bailey’s case had fired up Second Amendment activists across the country after police confiscated 28 firearms valued at more than $25,000, which Bailey had collected over more than a decade.

Bailey was generous in his praise of SAF’s intervention, noting, “I want to thank Alan Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation for all the help in getting my firearms returned.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said he was honored to have been able to step in with support for what he called a “worthy effort on behalf of a deserving veteran.”

Bailey had complained to the City of Glendale about a neighbor’s habit of parking dump trucks used in his landscaping company. The dispute unfolded over several months until Bailey called police over concerns of toxic chemical odors apparently coming from the neighbor’s property. The neighbor apparently alleged that Bailey had threatened him, and the following day, he obtained a harassment order against Bailey. 

“Mr. Bailey had been devastated by incident,” Gottlieb explained. “This all started because of a dispute with a neighbor that got way out of hand. Nobody should have their life turned upside down, and their property seized, because of an allegation that should have been thoroughly investigated.

“I want to credit attorney Mark Victor for his work in this legal action,” he added. “He was on top of this case, and SAF was delighted to help out with funding.”

“Now that Rick Bailey has his firearms back,” Gottlieb observed, “perhaps his dignity can also be restored. This kind of silly season story should never happen in real life.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

comments

  1. avatar Chris_from_NY says:

    I’m thinking that a major fix to our judicial system would involve those exonerated getting back all the money spent on defending themselves. Split it evenly by signature count on the documents found to be invalid.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      I think a better way would be firing and jailing overzealous judges who love to take away people rights just because they’re pathetic worthless wastes of human beings who gleefully use their power to ruin people’s lives.

      1. avatar Chris_From_NY says:

        Most politicians fall into that category, sadly. I’d love to see prosecution for politicians that propose bills that flagrantly violate constitutional rights or that vote for legislation they don’t understand.

        1. avatar DoomGuy says:

          I think just about every politician would be in jail.

        2. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Don’t give me false hope, Doomguy.

      2. avatar Bob says:

        It may have been unavoidable in this case, but calling the police should be the absolute last resort. More often than not they cause more trouble than they solve. This being a great example.

        The police have become a predatory force against society. They have an “us vs them” attitude and they go around looking for the slightest excuse to arrest someone. It’s a game to them.

        1. avatar steve says:

          Not all law enforcement or judicial officers of the court are bad. But if everyone had the attitude like you do it would be total anarchy. But I do believe that the ones that abuse there power should be held accountable.
          But now that’s he has his gins back that will all that will be said about this instead of attorneys pushing the issue of misconduct.

        2. avatar Bob says:

          @steve – because most everyone has “the attitude like you do” we have a government and cops like this.

    2. avatar borg says:

      I agree. IT may require a lawsuit alleging a civil rights violation and demanding compensation and court costs.

  2. avatar Gunr says:

    I wonder what the posters that say they are headed for Arizona, are saying now. Truth of the matter is, no place is safe from government takeover, and corruption.

    1. avatar DoomGuy says:

      I was honestly shocked. And I’m now rethinking what I have said in previous posts.

      1. avatar notaTTAGreg says:

        I was thinking similarly. Arizona is still better than MD for sure; maybe things will get better in CO?

        Sigh.

    2. avatar Vhyrus says:

      No place is perfect, but how many major cities can you oc in everyday for a year without a single negative comment or refusal of service?

      I thought so.

    3. avatar Kyle says:

      I’m one of those people.

      I’m weighing Oregon vs Arizona. I still find Arizona more inline with freedom than Oregon.

      Oregon still only on my radar at all because I’m like to have more water.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Oregon, where they just passed “universal background checks”? what is the status on that kind of thing in Az.?

        1. avatar Vhyrus says:

          You have a better chance of seeing it in Vermont.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          Kind of what I figured.

      2. avatar Sixpack70 says:

        Oregon is ruled by the moonbats in Portland and Eugene. I am sure an AWB will be coming in the next few years. It will get slammed through as an “Emergency” bill. Due to the UBC that was just passed I am almost assuredly not moving back there when I retire. I love the state, but if I can’t enjoy my rights and hobbies, I don’t want to live there.

      3. avatar Dustin says:

        Oklahoma and Texas are my only alternatives to Floriduh…

        Long Gun Carry suits me fine, so even if TX doesn’t man up, They still have that…

        OK is the last option because snow. Fuck snow.

        1. avatar cuzwhat says:

          We /do/ get snow in oklahoma, but usually not too much and it usually doesn’t hang around for more than a couple days.

      4. avatar Bob108 says:

        I moved from Oregon to Arizona last year. Best decision I ever made. Glendale is crazy city, so don’t move there.

    4. avatar Bob says:

      The real definition of government:

      “A group of people delegated by society to have the right to initiate the use of force within a geographical boundary.”

      (Not really delegated, because you can’t delegate a power you don’t have. Society has been tricked into believing that they have the ability to delegate powers they don’t have to a ruling class.)

      1. avatar Vhyrus says:

        Everyone knows the word politics comes from the word ‘poly’, meaning many, and the word ‘ticks’, meaning blood sucking parasites.

      2. avatar CBI says:

        Government: supporting the claim that a group of people has the right to initiate the use of force within a certain geographical area.

    5. avatar S.CROCK says:

      Still heading to AZ in four months. Still happy about that. No place will be perfect but when you are in ca, AZ looks close to perfect. Also I will feel like my vote will matter in AZ and will do more good. When you are young you want the chance to at least try living in a free state… even if it is not a perfect free state.

    6. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      You do realize that Arizona, like every other state, has very pro-statist, liberal areas , particularly in cities like Tucson and areas of Phoenix (which Glendale is located)?

      1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

        This was supposed to be a reply to notaTTAGreg, don’t know why it ended up down here.

  3. avatar Lawman 45 says:

    Most judges sign anything that is put in front of them. They have absolute immunity from everything but the ballot box. SAF should create a campaign to UN-elect this cad from his cushy judicial position.

    1. avatar Chris_From_NY says:

      I firmly believe recall ballots/petitions should be a regular hazard for any gov’t employee that has any discretionary power to be abused.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Yes. It should be easy and require very few signatures.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          And not many votes. If an official charged with carrying out justice can’t be trusted by a third of the people, he should be out.

        2. avatar Jeremy says:

          The problem there is voter apathy. Many people don’t research the candidates and just vote for either a single party or the incumbent.

    2. avatar Bob says:

      The A-holes who call themselves “government” (cops included) look for every opportunity to stick it so someone, anyone. They couldn’t care less about fairness and justice and reasonableness. They live by the letter of the law and use it to go hunting for victims.

      And they love to pounce on allegations like this with no evidence, and they particularly love “anonymous” calls as an excuse to victimize someone.

      1. avatar DoomGuy says:

        They rarely even live by the letter of the law IMO. They mostly love the power trip it gives them.

  4. avatar Shaun says:

    I hope he sues that neighbor for the damage he caused.

  5. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    But that nice lady over at MDA said no one was trying to take our guns away……..

    1. avatar JWM says:

      Apparently, you and I differ in what the term “nice lady” means.

  6. avatar TonyJude says:

    Sat down and listened to Mark Victor speak at a gun show in Phoenix.
    He seems like a genuine guy who believes in second amendment freedoms.

  7. avatar Buffalo_Bob says:

    Better hide some guns at a different location, this way you can still shoot your neighbor if this happens again… I mean sleep at night knowing your not defenseless is what I meant.

  8. avatar Tom says:

    Now he needs to sue the individual officers involved. Even if Bailey was to lose, the police officers would be owing thousands to their attorneys

    1. avatar Officer says:

      “Even if Bailey was to lose, the police officers would be owing thousands to their attorneys”

      Heh, not a chance. I have been sued more than once, and I have never paid a penny out of pocket. My locality has picked up the tab every single time. To be honest, every suit except one was dismissed due to qualified immunity, but the one that made it to a jury was laughable. The jury came back in my favor in under an hour. The jury foreman later told us he didn’t understand how it made it that far and said the jury thought the plaintiff was a total loser.

      I can only think of two partners that have lost civil suits. One received a judgement of around $15,000. Our locality paid his attorney fees, and the judgement was paid by a group of citizens so he wouldn’t have to. The other lost almost $30k, but the local politicians said that was stupid, so they reimbursed him for the judgment money. From what I understand, that is pretty common. The brass covered his attorney fees. The guy that won the suit spent every cent on his defense attorney for another arrest. He still lost and ended up getting sentenced to life, so we figured all’s well that ends well. We laughed about an hour straight over that one.

      Besides, the courts have made it pretty clear that LEOs are well within the Fourth Amendment when seizing weapons pursuant to an order of protection/restraining order/etc., so they would be granted qualified immunity, anyways.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        ” We laughed about an hour straight over that one.”

        Let me get this straight. You are laughing and think it’s a big joke that taxpayer money had to be spent in this way? Just because it did not come out of YOUR pocket (or your “partner’s”)?

        As a former LEO, I’m pretty disgusted by that attitude. The whole thing was a waste of public money, and even if you or your “partner” were in the right and the badguy ended up in jail after spending his lawsuit cash on an attorney…it’s no laughing matter.

        Look in the mirror and see why so many people are growing to hate cops more and more.

        “Besides, the courts have made it pretty clear that LEOs are well within the Fourth Amendment when seizing weapons pursuant to an order of protection/restraining order/etc., so they would be granted qualified immunity, anyways.”

        You are under operating under the false assumption that what the courts say determines what is right.

        It is clear that you think the courts determine what you are allowed to do or what you are allowed to get away with.

        You fail to see the enormous circle jerk the modern “criminal justice” system has become.

        When Orders of Protection and the like deny a person Due Process (it’s in one of those pesky government, including cops, limiting Amendments) AND fail the balancing test, it does not matter what the courts say….it’s still wrong.

        Qualified immunity is one of the single biggest problems we, as a free society, face. Accountability is a mighty powerful force to maintaining moral behavior in those with physical power.

        1. avatar Slopperator says:

          Yup.

  9. avatar Accur81 says:

    Truly sad. I live in a state with crappy gun laws, but fight idiocy like this everywhere. I contribute to the NRA, SAF, and FPC for these reasons. And I opposed the OR background check laws as well as the Colorado mag cap laws.

    If we gun owners banded together as a nation – everywhere – we could do a whole lot more damage to the gun control / confiscation / “gun safety” apparatus.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Something tells me that happening would be an exercise in futility roughly equal to this activity:

    2. avatar foodog says:

      +1. Its not going to happen if we the POTG do nothing but b1tch on internet forums.
      I also contribute to NRA, SAF, and a state gun-rights group that litigates against stupid laws.

      If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        Absolutely, 100%!

  10. avatar Gatha58 says:

    What, if anything, happened to his neighbor? Is he still parking his foul smelling trucks on his lot? If so, is this in a residential neighborhood? Why is it that the guy that complained is being persecuted and his rights being denied because of an unsubstantiated counter complaint from his neighbor. And it appears that nothing was done with the original complaint that he filed. I agree, recall this idiot judge who should never have signed this order in the first place. And then sue the City for compensation for stress, pain and suffering and legal fees. Anything so they will think twice before pulling this crap on someone else.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      What, if anything, happened to his neighbor? Is he still parking his foul smelling trucks on his lot?

      I wouldn’t be too fast about accepting one side of the story.

      Used to be a day when people had the liberty to park their vehicles on their own property….shocking ain’t it !

      Used to be a day that if people wanted privacy on their property they went out and bought a big lot in the boondocks rather than make everybody surrounding their 1/5 acre plot follow a sheetload of local regulations that grew longer every year by idiot town commissioners.

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    Some judges are naked underneath their black robes.

    1. avatar Dustin says:

      I don’t think anyone gets the reference. I thought I’d mention that I do, so that you don’t lose faith in humanity as I have…

  12. avatar Aaron says:

    due process used to mean having the opportunity to see evidence, rebut it, call witnesses on your behalf.

    This is obscene.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Let’s put obscene on steroids.

      This does not only apply to guns and other property. There are cases where people have lost custody of their own children due to third party intervention.

      I know of one case where a single Dad (who had had sole custody of his daughter for 9 years) wanted to take an extended trip with his 16 year old daughter. She agreed and wanted to go.

      A neighbor, a supposedly “disinterested third party” (my term), did not think that trip was a good idea, so she petitioned the court for custody…

      AND WON.

      That case is not unique. After hearing about it, I thought…”No way. That’s just too far over the top.” So, I did some research. That sort of thing happens quite a bit, but you sure don’t hear about it unless you dig for it.

      Let me be clear; there no was sign or even accusation of abuse. The 16 yo girl WANTED to go with Dad; they were breaking NO LAWS in formulating their plans. The neighbor just claimed it was not “normal” for a girl to go on such a trip with her father and instead should be shopping, hanging out at the mall and being a “teenager.”

      There just are not words to describe how obscene things have gotten.

      1. avatar Pg2 says:

        Agree, this story pales in comparison to what the medical establishment and family services can do without due process. The stories are egregious and they are increasing daily.

  13. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Glad he got his guns back. Yeah this is BS. REALLY-hide your stuff..

  14. avatar JoeVK says:

    Years ago, my mother-in-law took out a restraining order against my father-in-law. Because of that, he had to get rid of all of his firearms. Not surrender them to police, but sell them. Basically, the order treated him like a convicted felon, barred from ownership of firearms. The restraining order wasn’t entirely undeserved. It was well known that he had a very hot temper, and limited self control once he lost it. He apparently never got rid of ALL of his guns, he often hinted at having stashed a few of his favorites in an undisclosed location(s). After the order lapsed, he began collecting them again. The last 2 purchases he made before he passed were a S&W .500 magnum and a Kimber. When he passed, my brothers-in-law inherited his guns and split them up between them. One of them still has the .500, but I don’t know what became of the rest. Which is a shame, because I loved that Kimber (it started my love of all things 1911) and would’ve liked to have bought it from whoever got it.

  15. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

    Somewhere along the line government became a private entity.

  16. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Sounds like a crazy old man’s dispute with his neighbor should have gone through the HOA and/or civil remedies instead of calling the police. You call the police, you should expect trouble to come your way. I’ll leave it for others to determine whether the police are their enemies, but they sure as hell are not your friends.

    As for “no due process “, uh…..what do you call all of that legal maneuvering appealing the judge’s order and resulting in the return of the firearms, if not due process? Ohhhh……you mean you want due process on the front end, before the firearms were seized? Got it. Well.

    I hear in here all the time how such and such bad guy should never have been roaming the streets in the first place, perhaps with a hammer, let alone guns. Well, when do you expect the authorities ti act? When do you expect these determinations to be made, and how swiftly, and what immediate steps should be taken? Just let the alleged crazy man run around the city until all the legal wrangling concludes? Wrong. You all would call for the crazy man to be in a cell right away, but that’s only after the fact, at the end of the story, when we already know for certain he’s a crazy man. In real life, as the events actually unfold, it’s more difficult to make those decisions.

    That’s the problem with the POTG. They love to throw the dart first, then come draw the bull’s eye around it, patting themselves on the back for their precision in criticism. They pick a sympathetic figure, supposedly abused by the system, then whine and cry that the government acted against him at all, despite ultimately finding in his favor.

    Yet, when it’s an obvious villain, like the Garland shooters, what’s the POTG’s response? “Why didn’t the FBI get off its butt and alert the locals earlier???!!!”

    And have the locals do, what, exactly, with that information? The implication is to do “something”, like oh, I don’t know, arrest them, confiscate their guns, without due process, I’m sure. Failing that, gun them down in the street like rabid dogs.

    Pure selective outrage and ginning up of emotions for donations. The point, which many of you will, again, selectively ignore, is that while you want the government to act boldly sometimes, but not at other times, none of you can offer a standard policy up front that flawlessly directs one approach over the other.

    1. If all the legal manuvering had occurred *before* the guns were confiscated, I would call it due process. It is *not* due process to punish a person on the mere accusation of another before testimony is heard. There is supposed to be the presumption of innocence. This process is more like Alice in Wonderland “This is the justice of the Red Queen: sentence first, trial later.”

      1. avatar foodog says:

        I agree with you Dean, but that is the state of the legal system today, with domestic violence protection orders, and now in CA, Gun Violence Restraining Orders subject to abuse by clients advised by divorce attorneys and other “rights” groups.

        As a practical matter, a responsible gun owner needs to be aware of the threat, and take suitable precautions.
        Situational Awarness, if you will. Three S’s rule.

        Dont go to Stupid Places. (in this case, the Gun Guy found his neighbor had created a Stupid Place, next door)
        Dont go with Stupid People. (in this case, if we believe Gun Guy, his neighbor was a stupid person)
        and
        Dont do Stupid Things- in this case, given Gun Guy was stuck- he should not have done the stupid thing of making threats, that the neighbor could allege. A better way would have been to be very careful to document his calls, write a letter and send by registered mail, get other neighbors involved, perhaps as a petition, or co-signers on the letter to code-enforcement on the dump truck complaint. And make a complaint, in writing, to the cops, if need be, if the conversation over the back fence was getting heated, and going no where.

  17. avatar Dustin says:

    Frankly, if you live inside city limits, intentionally, and you think that’s a good thing… Well, enjoy your endless bullshit… Don’t whine at your neighbors and they won’t whine at you, at least out here… Unless you own a bump stock and you have a democrat neighbor… Lol!

    1. avatar SwampDaddy says:

      Thumbs Up! The City lifestyle breeds contempt ,and arrogance among those that dwell….

    2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Yep, another thumb’s up.

      Urbanization/suburbanization along with centralization of resources (like food production) is at least providing the impetus for (if not also the cause of) nearly all social problems.

      Urbanization breeds dependence.

      1. avatar Red in Texas says:

        Really? S**t, and here I’ve been self reliant for the last 22 years, living inside the city limits. I must not have got the memo.

  18. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    The black-robed tyrants strike again.

  19. avatar Dean says:

    Glendale Az is a suburb west of Phoenix itself, and aside from Tempe (home of ASU) it is probably the most liberal of the municipalities in the greater Phoenix area. The mayor and city council are by and large Democrats, and are kept in office by pandering to the large minority population that makes up much of Glendale these days. I’d not be surprised if they would not pass strict “gun control” if it weren’t for preemption laws.
    If you are considering moving to Arizona to enjoy your rights, Glendale, Flagstaff, and Tucson are all on the “avoid” list.

  20. avatar ELOT says:

    I’ve heard enough about the SAF on multiple occasions to decide to join. Sounds like an awesome organization.

  21. avatar Pg2 says:

    Due Process? That sounds so quaint and folksy these days.

  22. avatar Illinios_Minion says:

    I wonder if I can get an order of restraint issued against the police dept? They make me ‘feel’ insecure with their ‘accidental discharges”, and such.

  23. avatar JC says:

    What would of happened if 20 or 50 armed citizens went to the police station and retrieved the guns?

  24. avatar Pg2 says:

    Anyone surprised by the lack of due process is dangerously asleep at the wheel, completely unaware of their surroundings. There aren’t many places today where due process exists, anyone look at just what the medical establishment and family services can do without due process? This story pales in comparison.

  25. avatar foodog says:

    We can’t know the details here, based on the limited information provided by The Blaze. We can speculate either way on this case. Lets play devils advocate:

    This vet could be a cranky old guy who had harsh words with this neighbor, including making threats.
    The neighbor sounds like a douchebag, in the wrong, parking his dump trucks on the street in violation of the city code enforcement order, but … lets say he was genuinely concerned.

    It sounds like the landscape company owning neighbor “Swatted” the old guy with a bogus claim of a threat, figuring it would be met with the mandatory reporting requirement of the cops, in the case of elder abuse or if known gun ownership, knowing the cops have to do a welfare check.
    But what if it was a genuine report, based on real concern for his safety, after the neighbors threats?

    So, lets look at what the cops did- they are just doing their jobs, as mandatory responders/reporters on an elder-abuse claim, or a guns as threat complaint.

    The judge made the call to confiscate the guns, one could argue, on a cautionary basis.

    After the Elliot Rodgers situation, where the Santa Barbara County Sheriffs who responded on that first welfare check simply believed Rodgers, and left without checking…leaving him with the knives and guns he used on the second incident.

    So why wouldnt a safety-conscious department go the extra step, or a judge take a precautionary view, to seize the guns until the facts are known? I’m not saying its valid in this case, because I dont know the facts. But given the limited facts, a reasonable interpretation to take safest course of action makes this sequence of events entirely foreseeable.

    The bottom-line, as a gun-owner? Dont be a douche. Dont tell your d1ck-head neighbors you have guns, and for sure, don’t threaten them in any way. Use the official channels- call the HOA, call city code-enforcement, call the cops, and keep a written contemporaneous record.

    Whatever you do, if you cant control your anger, then dont get personally involved in a pi$$ing contest with d1ck-heads. Navy vet or no, this gun owner should have known better.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      “The judge made the call to confiscate the guns, one could argue, on a cautionary basis.”

      Exactly; what judge is going to want his name coming up if an opportunity to sideline a possible tragedy was not taken by His Honor?

      “…as a gun-owner? Dont be a douche. Dont tell your d1ck-head neighbors you have guns, and for sure, don’t threaten them in any way.”

      Absolutely this should be SOP in every case; OPSEC; ‘Loose lips sink ships’; S/A, and all of that.
      The more so in unfriendly anti-gun country environs. Don’t do anything to give ‘them’ a reason. Low key reticence.

  26. avatar Joe A says:

    When do you defend your property from thieves who have warrants?

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email