Innocent Owner Affidavit: Fill & Download for Free

“Why me, the registered owner still being cited for red light camera ticket, not the driver in photo and filed an affidavit on time?”Your question leaves too much to the imagination. The law on red light cameras is different in every jurisdiction, even county by county in California, and the procedure for challenging red light camera citations is just as varied. In some jurisdictions, you must request an administrative review from an agency like the San Francisco Metropolitan Authority; in others, like Los Angeles County, you should completely ignore the ticket. The Devil is in the details.[Added: Please note that Rick Bruno is completely wrong in his answer regarding the current state of the law in California. There was a time when red light camera citations were treated like parking tickets in California. That is no longer the case. Owners of vehicles can challenge red light camera citations in California by asserting a case of mistaken identity, even if they do not know who was driving their car. Additionally, even valid parking citations can be successfully challenged by innocent third parties through administrative review in California. I have done this more than once and guided friends of mine through the process.]See also: David F. Prenatt Jr.'s answer to, “How should I handle a red light ticket when I can't identify the driver of my vehicle?”[Please note that I am not a lawyer, and that nothing in this post should be construed as a legal opinion or be considered legal advice. If you think that you need a legal opinion or legal advice, you should consult with a lawyer who is licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction.]

To obtain Federal search warrant with a "no-knock" clause, the agent would have to support the "no-knock" in the affidavit with probable cause to believe that the occupants are likely to resist with violence or destroy evidence. Federal judges take a dim view of 'no-knock" warrants and are not inclined to issue them without a very good reason. DOJ guidelines require agents to adhere to knock and notice requirements if information is received that would nullify the no-knock provision of the warrant.Current case law requires that police use of a thermal imager to detect an indoor marijuana grow is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (Kyllo v. United States, 121 S. Ct. 2038, 2001) and therefore requires search warrant. As a practical matter, this means that police don't use imagers to detect indoor grows since, if you have PC for the use of the imager, you have PC for the search. (I was a thermographer in the mid- to late-nineties. We only conducted imaging missions if there were other indications of growing, i.e. power use anomalies, suspicious trash, windows covered with foil, etc.)

Why are gun owners so defensive when no one is trying to take away their guns? We just want criminals to not have guns. Shouldn’t gun owners be on our side?From They are coming for your guns by Murphy BarrettGun Banners often claim that nobody is trying to take guns away from anybody. They’re lying. Why do I say this? Well, let’s look at their past performance.Because:Gun control advocates keep pointing to places like the UK or Australia as examples, places in which confiscation has occurred beforeSome jurisdictions in the US have attempted outright confiscation beforeReading gun control laws, it is clear that:The people writing them know very little about gunsThat they are clearly meant to restrict as many guns as possibleThe eventual goal is a total banGun control advocates have outright lied in the past about guns to get them bannedGun control creep keeps making more and more things illegalThen, there’s what they’ve had to say on the matter themselves.Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, April 5, 1995 DISARM THE CITIZENRY. BUT NOT YET.Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States“Only the police should have handguns.”“When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps” Enough is Enough, MTV, April 19, 1994Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator from California“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” Associated Press, November 18, 1993“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” I would have done it.” 60 Minutes, CBS, February 5, 1995“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”Howard Metzenbaum, former U.S. Senator“No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.”Charles Pashayan, U.S. Representative from California“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.” United Nations Conference on Small Arms, 2001Pete Stark, U.S. Representative from California“If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.” Town Hall Meeting, June 1999, Fremont, CaliforniaWilliam Clay, U.S. Representative from Missouri” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”Joseph Biden, Vice President of the United States“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”John Chafee, Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13AJan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative from Illinois“I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” Tape recorded on June 25, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp at the Chicago Gay Pride ParadeMajor Owens, U.S. Representative from New York“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”Bobby Rush, U.S. Representative from Illinois“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.” Chicago Tribune, December 5, 1999Nelson T. “Pete” Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc. (Originally named “The National Council to Ban Handguns”)” …. the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976“Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).” 60 Minutes interview“We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.” New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, pg. 53Sarah Brady, Chairperson for Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign)“…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” Handguns in America, Hearst Newspapers Special Report, October 1997“We would like to see, in the future, what we will probably call needs-based licensing of all weapons. …Where it would make it much more difficult for anybody to be able to purchase handguns….” Sarah Brady speech to the Women’s National Democratic Club, Sept. 21, 1993“To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.” Tampa Tribune, Oct 21, 1993Jim Brady“[Handguns] For target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police.” Parade Magazine, June 26, 1994Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy“Handguns should be outlawed.”Bernard Parks, Chief of Police, L.A. California“We would get rid of assault weapons. There would not be an assault weapon in the United States, whether it’s for a show or someone having it in a collection.” Reuters, June 9, 2000Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center“ … immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999Patrick V. Murphy, former New York City Police Commissioner“We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people.” Testimony to the National Association of Citizens Crime CommissionsAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” Board of Directors in September 1976 – see national ACLU policy #47Rosie O’Donnell, TV talk show hostess“I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” The Rosie O’Donnell Show April 19, 1999Violence Policy Center (VPC)“[gun] Licensing systems are very expensive to administer … licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence.”“[We are] the largest national gun control advocacy group seeking a ban on handgun production.” Politics, paranoia fuel war of words over guns, The Times Union, October 18, 2004Alan M. Dershowitz, Lawyer and Frankfurter Professor of Law“The Second Amendment has no place in modern society.” The Crimson Daily, April 9, 2003Michael Gardner, President of NBC News“There is no reason for anyone in this country … to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun …The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.” USA Today, January 16, 1992“In fact, only police, soldiers — and, maybe, licensed target ranges — should have handguns. No one else needs one.” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 1991Editorial, Los Angeles Times“Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership? Because it’s the only alternative to the present insanity. Without both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safe.” Taming the Monster: Get Rid of the Guns, Dec. 28, 1993“…The Times supports a near-total ban on the manufacture and private ownership of handguns and assault weapons, leaving those guns almost exclusively in the hands of law enforcement officials.” Taming the Monster: The Guns Among Us, Dec. 10, 1993Jack E. White, Time Magazine national correspondent“Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one? Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles? Nobody needs one.” Washington Times, May 8, 1999Gary Wills, syndicated columnist“Every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other.” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 17, 1981George Napper, Atlanta public-safety commissioner“If I had my druthers, the only people who would have guns would be those who enforce the law.” U.S. News and World ReportJanet Reno, former U.S. attorney general“The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.” Addressing a 1984 B’nai B’rith gathering in Coral Gables, Florida, per affidavit written by Fred Diamond of MiamiMarion Barry, former mayor, Washington D.C.“Our neighbors in Virginia are just as responsible for these killings as the criminals are because they won’t pass strong gun [control] legislation.” This Week With David Brinkley, ABC TV, March 19, 1989 (Ed: The claim being that citizens of Virginia were responsible for murders committed in Washington D.C.)Should we not take them at their word? When they consistently admit total bans are the goal, supported by increasingly draconian laws that fail to get guns out of the hands of criminals, what other purpose can gun control serve?Obviously it can’t be “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals”, because that’s not what gun control does. It can’t be “making sure no innocent people get murdered”, because nothing in human history has put a stop to that, we have only one end state ever explicitly sought by gun controllers. A total ban on private ownership of firearms.Source Gun Facts | Quotes Concerning Gun ControlAnd here are some gems from Quora itself.Of course this question is anonymous.And in a move that shocks no one, a Californian wants to straight out ban “assault weapons”, and steal the ones you already, under the guise of a “buyback”.Swalwell on why he says we should ban & buy back assault weaponsLook, Swalwell is a fucking moron. Buyback? Fuckoff.The guns were never owned by the Feds to begin with. You cannot “buy back” something you never owned in the first place.“Buying” something is a voluntary exchange, where one party exchanges goods or services with another, for money. Holding a gun to people’s heads and taking their property involuntarily, even if you compensate them monetarily, is NOT buying, it’s robbery.Further, there is no goddamn fucking way for such a program to actually pay anything even remotely close to market value for 300 million odd guns. Which means the “compensation” will be naught but a cruel joke.“Semi-automatic assault weapons”? Screw guns, I’m going to beat this idiot to death with a dictionary.“A child’s right to learn without fear and to come home after school and to live is greater than any other right…” You know what, asshat? I actually agree with you. Which is why I want big angry men with real machine guns ready to protect our kids from some malefactor who wants to murder them. But your plan? Your “Gun Free Zones”? Is this.“I don’t accept the premise that an assault weapon is covered by the second amendment” Holy fucking Christ, I agree with this moron again. Because “assault weapons” are not a goddamn thing that exist. Define for me, in specific technical detail, what makes an “Assault Weapon”, and how it is different from every other rifle. How do I make what? What caliber, muzzle velocity, muzzle energy, accuracy, what operating mechanism? Define the goddamn thing as something other than “Whatever gun I want to ban this week”. So you’re right, fucknuts, “Assault Weapons” aren’t covered, just like unicorns aren’t. But any and all actual arms that exist are, and I don’t give a unicorn’s fart if you “don’t accept” that, it’s written in plain if archaic English. Learn to fucking read! Maybe you should go back to school and retake English Comprehension.The only good thing that can possibly come from this idiocy, is that we have a shining golden shit of an example that They are coming for your guns. Really.Other gems.Go on. Tell me again that nobody is trying to ban guns. Look me right in the eye and lie to my face.Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, hoping to make them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief.”-Gaslighting - WikipediaOn Gunsplaining and GaslightingFor further reading:Bearing ArmsGun Control, de-facto bans, Common Sense, and TrustJust One LifeFirst Guns, then KnivesAlways One More