Defensive Carry banner
1 - 20 of 82 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This NJ woman was charged with making "terroristic threats" and was "coerced" into handing over her guns after she read the Constitution at a tax dispute assembly. After the assembly a representative from the appraisal company followed the NJ woman to her car. The representative claims in a statement to the police that NJ woman said she was going to return with a gun. While in custody, the police sergeant told the NJ woman that if she didn't turn in her guns that her bail would be set prohibitively high.

Why didn't the police try to get a warrant to search her home for guns? If I was this woman, I would have told them "no warrant, no guns." If this happened to you, would you have voluntarily handed in your guns?


Here s the story:


NJ MOTHER PRESSURED TO TURN OVER HER GUNS, CHARGED WITH ‘TERRORISTIC THREATS’ AFTER READING THE CONSTITUTION AT TAX DISPUTE ASSEMBLY
Mar. 12, 2013 4:15pm Erica Ritz

​Key Points:

Eileen Hart objected to a state re-evaluation of her property value that would drastically increase her tax rates
She read the Constitution at a tax dispute forum and called one of the appraisers a “pencil-pusher”
One of tax officials called 911 saying Hart threatened to return with a gun, but she unequivocally denies the claim
Hart was charged with making “terroristic threats” and told that if she didn’t turn over her weapons, her bail would be prohibitively high and it was unclear how long she would have to remain in jail


A New Jersey mother was arrested and told to turn over her guns after reading the Constitution and peacefully protesting at a tax dispute forum, she says...

Read the rest of the story on TheBlaze: NJ Mother Pressured to Turn Over Her Guns, Charged With ?Terroristic Threats? After Reading the Constitution at Tax Dispute Assembly | TheBlaze.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Brings up an interesting question about how one would guard against such claims/accusations if they were to occur. Unknown if that's what they were, in this case.

If such a meeting were videotaped, I can see such tapes going missing.

If one were to come to such a meeting with a personal recorder but be subsequently arrested on the scene, I can see such a recorder going missing.

If one comes without any such recorder and things go sideways with mere accusations, with a he-said / she-said situation it could get tough to withstand the pressure brought to bear by "the system."

Things to think about, when we're out and about. Know the enemy. Take reasonable precautions. Remain responsible, reasonable and circumspect in our dealings with others, 'cause you never know what's possible.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
Who writes these sensasionlist headlines? It makes it sound like the reason she was charged with terroristic threats and pressured to turn over her guns was because she read the COnstitution. Not even close.

Anyway....back to the story. She was arrested becuasse of the accusation that she was going to come back with a gun. Seems like a he said she said at this point. Also, just one side of a story again. I do no know tha laws about bailment and procedures so I don't know if that is also true about bail be set lower if the charge is weapons related or the charge given to her.

About the warrant: Nowhere does it say anything about them asking to come in or search for anything. Direct qoute:
Much to her surprise, Hart returned home to numerous police cars, the officers asking if they could bring her in for questioning even though they did not have a warrant.
We must have read two different stories LOL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tzadik and Hopyard

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
Other side maybe-- when you act out at a public hearing, threaten people hired to do a job,
and are arrested, conditions for your release are set; usually by a judge or magistrate. Then, your
bondsman may have his own ideas as well.

None of us were there, don't know her demeanor at the time, but there may be good reason to believe her
unstable.

There are right and wrong ways to express your displeasure at hearings of this nature.

Personal threats are personal threats regardless of circumstances and are unlawful.

I see nothing wrong with the demand that she turn over her guns in exchange for release on bond.

Also, "bail was prohibitively high." Duh, that's part of the game. Its the judge's call not hers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
Brings up an interesting question about how one would guard against such claims/accusations if they were to occur. Unknown if that's what they were, in this case.

If such a meeting were videotaped, I can see such tapes going missing.

If one were to come to such a meeting with a personal recorder but be subsequently arrested on the scene, I can see such a recorder going missing.

If one comes without any such recorder and things go sideways with mere accusations, with a he-said / she-said situation it could get tough to withstand the pressure brought to bear by "the system."

Things to think about, when we're out and about. Know the enemy. Take reasonable precautions. Remain responsible, reasonable and circumspect in our dealings with others, 'cause you never know what's possible.
There simply is not enough information in the article to determine who was over-reacting.

I have seen many people get extremely upset at their tax bill, to the point of threatening.. Heck, I had a guy threaten bodily harm to me over 5 cents at the gas station...

Most assessors offices I know of (whether they use third party appraisers or not) have the right, and use it, to estimate value if they are not allowed to enter the premises. They usually over estimate by a great deal, in order to "legally coerce" being allowed entry.

Unfortunately, in this country, you don't actually own your property... the state can take it at ay time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
There simply is not enough information in the article to determine who was over-reacting.
Correct.

Hence, about the only thing we can think about is how to guard against such situations in our own lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
606 Posts
Turning over your guns to be released on bond sounds reasonable??? Where have we gone...........
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,596 Posts
I have no idea what possesses some people to respond in such a manner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,361 Posts
Everything here in NJ can be considdered a Terroristic Threat......even flashing someone the bird is an arrest.
Then they come for your belongings......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43,596 Posts
Everything here in NJ can be considdered a Terroristic Threat......even flashing someone the bird is an arrest.
Then they come for your belongings......
The SCOTUS has ruled that an expression of free speech.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
527 Posts
Certainly there are consequences of speaking one's mind, but they should not be different based on who is hearing the speaking. The fact that a government employee can get the police to come to coerce her to surrender her guns simply on "he said, she said" is ludicrous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,008 Posts
Not much information to go on. It sounds like the police are over-reacting based on hear-say.

If this is true, it could be used by anti's to disarm many people. Simply make an allegation that you were threatened by someone they think owns guns and the cops show up and disram them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
Not much information to go on. It sounds like the police are over-reacting based on hear-say.

If this is true, it could be used by anti's to disarm many people. Simply make an allegation that you were threatened by someone they think owns guns and the cops show up and disram them.
Just for the counter point-- it might be based on more than hearsay. Her behavior at the hearing
could speak to the possible veracity of the alleged threat.

I've had a little to do with property appraisers; 20 years ago I had to hire a lawyer and it took
me 10 years of lower property taxes to recoup my legal expenses but they didn't get away with their
nonsensical appraisal and appeals procedures which made appealing almost impossible.

Just a few months ago that same town's appraisal contractor --probably a new one who knew nothing
of the past events-- was very very easy to deal with. She cut one appraisal by 90% and basically
volunteered to cut another one about 10%. No need to go to a formal hearing, no need to hire a lawyer, no
need to sue the town, this time around.

The thing though, is in each instance I had evidence that the appraisal was
erroneous. You can't just show up and say "its wrong, you can't do this to me, its against the constitution,
and expect anyone to listen to you." You need to be able to explain why the appraisal is wrong and
if at all possible, bring evidence.

I can well understand someone getting very very upset about an erroneous or unjust appraisal, but
frankly disrupting a meeting by standing there and attempting to read the constitution instead of
properly arguing the reasons why the appraisal is erroneous, makes no sense. It is a lousy tactic
and one that is almost a guaranteed fail.

Just from the tiny bit we do have on that aspect of disrupting the hearing I call "nuts," and not sane enough in terms of
common sense judgment to keep 'em.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Who writes these sensasionlist headlines? It makes it sound like the reason she was charged with terroristic threats and pressured to turn over her guns was because she read the COnstitution. Not even close.

Anyway....back to the story. She was arrested becuasse of the accusation that she was going to come back with a gun. Seems like a he said she said at this point. Also, just one side of a story again. I do no know tha laws about bailment and procedures so I don't know if that is also true about bail be set lower if the charge is weapons related or the charge given to her.

About the warrant: Nowhere does it say anything about them asking to come in or search for anything. Direct qoute:

Much to her surprise, Hart returned home to numerous police cars, the officers asking if they could bring her in for questioning even though they did not have a warrant.

We must have read two different stories LOL.
Here is the direct quote:

...police handcuffed her to a chair and charged her with “terroristic threats.”...After trying to “coerce” her into making a statement along the lines of “what he thinks happened,” Hart said the police sergeant informed her that if she didn’t turn over her firearms for “safe keeping,” her bail would be set prohibitively high and it was unclear how long she would have to remain in custody.

She was taken into custody at her home and they transported her to the Police Station and handcuffed her to a chair. She was arrested and charged and then according to her, the sergeant tried to "coerce" here into make a statement. The sergeant also implied that if she didn't voluntarily turn over her firearms she might not be released on her own recognizance and bail might be set prohibitively high...in other words, give us your guns or we will lock you up and we will tell the judge that you are not cooperating so that they can set a really high bail.

The article then says, Hart turned over her two firearms and associated equipment, and was told that she’ll get them back “when this is all over.”

If she was at the Police Station handcuffed to a chair and the guns were inside her house, how was the process of turning over the firearms handled? Did they take her to her house while she was in custody so that she could give them her guns? Since the sergeant implied that she wouldn't be let go until the guns were turned over to the police, the police must have been with her when the guns were taken from her home unless the husband brought the guns to the Police Station but that might be unlikely since the article stated "Hart turned over her two firearms..." and not her husband turned over her two firearms.

I thought the "Constitution" headline was a bit silly too but I used it in the thread title for easy identification so we don't get a duplicate thread.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Just for the counter point-- it might be based on more than hearsay. Her behavior at the hearing
could speak to the possible veracity of the alleged threat.

I've had a little to do with property appraisers; 20 years ago I had to hire a lawyer and it took
me 10 years of lower property taxes to recoup my legal expenses but they didn't get away with their
nonsensical appraisal and appeals procedures which made appealing almost impossible.

Just a few months ago that same town's appraisal contractor --probably a new one who knew nothing
of the past events-- was very very easy to deal with. She cut one appraisal by 90% and basically
volunteered to cut another one about 10%. No need to go to a formal hearing, no need to hire a lawyer, no
need to sue the town, this time around.

The thing though, is in each instance I had evidence that the appraisal was
erroneous. You can't just show up and say "its wrong, you can't do this to me, its against the constitution,
and expect anyone to listen to you." You need to be able to explain why the appraisal is wrong and
if at all possible, bring evidence.

I can well understand someone getting very very upset about an erroneous or unjust appraisal, but
frankly disrupting a meeting by standing there and attempting to read the constitution instead of
properly arguing the reasons why the appraisal is erroneous, makes no sense. It is a lousy tactic
and one that is almost a guaranteed fail.


Just from the tiny bit we do have on that aspect of disrupting the hearing I call "nuts," and not sane enough in terms of
common sense judgment to keep 'em.
This was a public forum and she was reading from the NJ Constitution not the US Constitution...

But at the forum, Hart was allegedly told that since she didn’t let the inspectors into her home, they had a right to “assume” its value under the New Jersey state constitution.

“How could they assume that my value had doubled when there is absolutely no housing market?” she asked TheBlaze rhetorically over the phone. “There is basically no GDP growth.”

After Hart started citing the Constitution, a representative of Appraisal Systems, Inc.– the company contracted by the state to conduct appraisals– started “freaking out,” she said, and called for Gloucester County tax assessor Robyn Glocker-Hammond.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,033 Posts
Here is the direct quote:

...police handcuffed her to a chair and charged her with “terroristic threats.”...After trying to “coerce” her into making a statement along the lines of “what he thinks happened,” Hart said the police sergeant informed her that if she didn’t turn over her firearms for “safe keeping,” her bail would be set prohibitively high and it was unclear how long she would have to remain in custody.

She was taken into custody at her home and they transported her to the Police Station and handcuffed her to a chair. She was arrested and charged and then according to her, the sergeant tried to "coerce" here into make a statement. The sergeant also implied that if she didn't voluntarily turn over her firearms she might not be released on her own recognizance and bail might be set prohibitively high...in other words, give us your guns or we will lock you up and we will tell the judge that you are not cooperating so that they can set a really high bail.

The article then says, Hart turned over her two firearms and associated equipment, and was told that she’ll get them back “when this is all over.”

If she was at the Police Station handcuffed to a chair and the guns were inside her house, how was the process of turning over the firearms handled? Did they take her to her house while she was in custody so that she could give them her guns? Since the sergeant implied that she wouldn't be let go until the guns were turned over to the police, the police must have been with her when the guns were taken from her home unless the husband brought the guns to the Police Station but that might be unlikely since the article stated "Hart turned over her two firearms..." and not her husband turned over her two firearms.

I thought the "Constitution" headline was a bit silly too but I used it in the thread title for easy identification so we don't get a duplicate thread.
I know what you are saying but I feel to see where anybody overstepped their bounds about the "taking guns" issue. It sounds like she or her hubby gave permission. Either way, without us being there it sounds like we will not know what is going on unless there is a recording or a bunch of witness'e come forward verifying either story.

Here is what bugs me:
1. Headline is totally bogus and IMO deliberatley misleading (not your fault)
2. The folks covering this have a bias (Examiner, Blaze, et al) there fore you have to take with a grain of salt until it is verified by an out side and unbias source
3. I think the lady did go bonkers and was being as arse. Understandablym my town in NH tried the same thing with everyones property and the town hall meeting got heated.
4. Folks that are in the ladies position tend to exaggerate the truth to make them look like they are the victims. Fact is, I can see her getting booted out. But once we get paast all of her bluster, how many folks call the cops and make up a story about being threatened with a gun when there are most likely witness's around to back them up? I am one of the last folks to defend LE (sorry guys!) but I do not beleive they would have arrested her unless there is more to the story.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
This was a public forum and she was reading from the NJ Constitution not the US Constitution...

And?

Are we certain that was relevant to the actual issue of her appraisal?

Her complaint seems to be
they guestimated her home's value at double where she thought it should have been, in part because she
wouldn't let them in to see the interior. Big deal. There are ways to handle this without going bonkers.

Like, before the hearing you get an independent appraisal, maybe a free market analysis from a
real-estate agent, and go to the meeting prepared with something to validate your claim of the home's
value. If the house needs major repairs, you bring an estimate showing that your foundation
needs 30K worth of repair and a realtor says the house isn't marketable without those repairs being
done. If your neighbor's home is comparable and has been valued at half of what yours is at, you bring\
evidence of that fact.

Reading the constitution, state or otherwise, doesn't get to the heart of the matter-- the appropriate
valuation of your property. Threatening violence does get you handcuffed to a chair.

The officer's statement wasn't coercive. It was a statement of fact. The judge is going to
give you a lower bond if you get the guns out of the house. That's how it works with folks who have
been alleged to have threatened violence.

She should count herself lucky they didn't get a mental hold on her.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,571 Posts
Gotta agree with Suntzu and Hopyard... AND,

What we don't need now (or ever) is people who own guns acting out. I support the Second Amendment, I have a permit to carry. I have written every elected official from sheriff to POTUS in order to let them know I am not in favor of actions that will infringe on my right to keep and bear arms...

But the "fringes" of law abiding gun owners put me (and all of us) at risk of being "infringed" upon. Loughner and Holmes got their guns legally... they were "law abiding citizens" who passed NICS checks... perhaps because the NICS system is flawed and classifications that make "prohibited persons" are under reported into the system, but the reason does not matter... What matters is that we are al painted with the same broad brush.

I had an anti acquaintance post this regarding the "Shall issue" law in Iowa:

It is a bit of a conundrum, we don’t want the paranoid to have guns, but it is the paranoid who want guns the most.
The question posted in our paper was:
Is Iowa’s ‘shall issue’ gun permit law a positive change?

Those who are prepared are considered paranoid... Those who enjoy firearms are potentially "whackjobs" according to another poster.

While in Hollyweird, "any publicity is good publicity!" the same does not hold true for those of us who value our Second Amendment rights.

It ain't pretty, but it's the truth.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,602 Posts
Being rational and not threatening physical violence, citizens have the first and second amendments. Our rights are natural and don't depend on the behavior of fellow citizens. If they do, it's time to redress that grievance and not time to blame the victim of local tin horns. Until more information proves otherwise, I don't blame Mrs. Hart.
 
1 - 20 of 82 Posts
Top