Yeah, I haven’t had the time to watch the video yet, but it seems that you and I are pretty much on the same page…..
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
LIberty Safe The Bud Lite of Safes
- Thread starter DuneBoer
- Start date
There is no distinction like this, property and inside safe.
If there is a search warrant for a specific thing, then the officers executing a search warrant are entitled to search wherever that thing may be found, and that includes inside a safe.
Small enough to fit in a safe? Then you can open it, or they will open it, but they are going to search the safe.
That is just the law. This is not a controversial or debatable point.
Folks in this thread keep repeating the opposite, but that is just wrong.
Oh damn sir,
No one is saying they couldn't have legally gotten into the safe. It's just that the more hoops one can legally make them jump through the better and that also makes more opportunity for them to fuck up, which can later be used in court against them.
For everyone else, remember:
Early to bed
Early to rise
Then the FBI raid won't be a surprise.
No doubt there are ass holes.
I was going to Sidney NE and if any of you have made that trip across NE you know just how dull it is. I have the wife in the car and my kid. I am buzzing along roughly 90. Out of nowhere this HP shows up next to me. Where in the hell did he come from. Hung there a little bit then drove away even faster. That would have been one hell of a ticket. Speed limit was still 55. Not another car on the road.
On the way back and running from a snow storm it was 100+ till we hit Lincoln.
Lots of persons in this thread have said exactly that, including the person I quoted. I was simply clearing it up. That is not the law.
A third party's consent has nothing at all to do with the legality of the search.
If you think you are correct, then provide some case law where a third party provided the combination, and that waived all defenses that the accused might have had if law enforcement had simply cut the safe open.
Anyway, unlike Bid Light, Liberty Safes has listened to the backlash and revised their policy of cooperation in the face of a search warrant.
www.foxbusiness.com
Gun safe company hit with backlash for providing FBI with code to customer's safe
Popular gun safe company Liberty Safe is facing backlash after the company admitted to sharing a customer's safe password with law enforcement; it has since changed its policies.
www.foxbusiness.com
Let's recap shall we?
Why the fuck would anyone give these communist shitbags any money? Why? Fetterman? Warnock? OBAMA FOR AMERICA FFS!
Make all the excuses for them you want and keep doing business with them. That's the Republican way.
Why the fuck would anyone give these communist shitbags any money? Why? Fetterman? Warnock? OBAMA FOR AMERICA FFS!
Make all the excuses for them you want and keep doing business with them. That's the Republican way.
Giving money to help elect communists actively working to destroy our republic and enslave all of us is enough reason to shut them down forever. Look at who they support.
Kelly is one of the biggest champions of total civilian disarmament. He is behind the Giffords group. He is working tirelessly to disarm all of us.
Warnock is a marxist actively working to dismantle the republic and society.
If I find out you gave $.01 to any deepstate communists thug, you are dead to me forever. BRC, liberty safe, team wendy helmets, etc. There are no free passes for anyone helping communists.
Kelly is one of the biggest champions of total civilian disarmament. He is behind the Giffords group. He is working tirelessly to disarm all of us.
Warnock is a marxist actively working to dismantle the republic and society.
If I find out you gave $.01 to any deepstate communists thug, you are dead to me forever. BRC, liberty safe, team wendy helmets, etc. There are no free passes for anyone helping communists.
Anyway, unlike Bid Light, Liberty Safes has listened to the backlash and revised their policy of cooperation in the face of a search warrant.
Gun safe company hit with backlash for providing FBI with code to customer's safe
Popular gun safe company Liberty Safe is facing backlash after the company admitted to sharing a customer's safe password with law enforcement; it has since changed its policies.
It's too late retards, we found out you support the commies that are actively destroying the republic. Go to hell.
Not only did they support hillary's campaign, they actually had her do a campaign stop at their HQ! Team Wendy fucking loves hillary clinton.
I can tell you why, people did not know. By doing what they did the other day put a great big spotlight on them. And all of this is now coming out in the open. They did what they could for damage control. Ooops you guys are mad about this we will not do it any more......unless we feel like it naturally. The entire judge by actions not by words.
Now all these other details are coming out that people just don't look for when shopping for any product. You will look for features, you want this or that, then start shopping for price, availability....whatever. These companies know this so they could support their buddies in .gov.
Then it comes to light and this is one cat that is not going to go back into the bag. They can't undo the past at least until they start cruising the net for "misinformation". Then that will be scrubbed 1984 style.
The customers are learning to do a little looking behind the scenes. And companies do not like it. The perfect example is the country inside of FL that is called Disney World. The public found out about that sweetheart deal and the wheels came off the wagon. How many billions did that cost them because of the political stance of a company.
And a prime example of I didn't know...
Wonderful....I bought 20k worth of stuff from them back in 2015 on a .gov contract. Great.
Here is the owner's contributions to the destruction of the USA. You can click at the top for a view of recipient's. Basically he hates America but has no problem making money from Americans.
Dan T Moore Co Profile: Totals
Dan T Moore Co organization profile: contributions by party of recipient, by source of funds, and affiliates.
www.opensecrets.org
Stop playing lawyer. You are way over your head. That link is about warrantless car searches by consent.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe consider that some others posting here might actually know a little more about this subject than you do. I know that is a difficult thing to do on the internet, where everybody thinks he is a subject matter expert because he has a search engine available, but, due to your overall level of ignorance, the search engine has entirely failed for you. It will never help you, of course, because you are searching for something that is not the law. Maybe try learning a little instead of teaching outside of your knowledge or expertise.
LOL, fair enough, but at least you base it on that, and not the policy, which they changed in response to the customer backlash over this incident.
First off I’m not an attorney and second I’m here to learn so if I misinterpreted application of search warrants I’ll admit my error.
Assuming you are an attorney, in what instances would the search of a locked safe not be considered ”legal” or within the scope of a property search warrant?
A little late for that. I'll never buy any of their products again.Anyway, unlike Bid Light, Liberty Safes has listened to the backlash and revised their policy of cooperation in the face of a search warrant.
Gun safe company hit with backlash for providing FBI with code to customer's safe
Popular gun safe company Liberty Safe is facing backlash after the company admitted to sharing a customer's safe password with law enforcement; it has since changed its policies.
edit; Oh and just for the sake of disclosure......I own one of their safes that I bought in 1990 (with a S & G analog lock). Apparently, before they became shitbags.
But, no more.
Last edited:
The only problem is that Liberty had nothing to do with the warrant. They would only legally be obligated to give up the code if they were specifically subpoenaed.
Liberty folded under the "just be a good guy and give us what we want before we get mad having to take the time to actually follow the law" pressure.
Liberty safe is completely legal with what they did? So what? You going to give them money so they can write a check to John Fetterman?
Who fucking cares? They support shitstains.
Who fucking cares? They support shitstains.
Last edited:
You are simply wrong about that. Consent only matters (a) to the person with a property interest, that is, Nathan Hughes, not Liberty Safes, and (b) in the context of not having a warrant. It is already established that there is a warrant, so consent is irrelevant. Calling me a dumb ass does not change the law. You simply do not understand the concepts you are trying to discuss.
JR_77,
I apologize if I did not explain it clearly above.
A search warrant lists what is sought to be seized. For example, a stolen car, 1969 Plymouth Roadrunner. There are only so many places one may stuff a 1969 Plymouth Roadrunner, and a gun safe is not one of those. If the search warrant listed an AK-47, and the safe is one of those little handgun safes, then, again, a rifle will not fit.
But whatever the search warrant describes, the officers may look into anywhere where the thing may be found. Let's say they are looking for a kilo of heroin. That could easily fit in a gun safe. So, either you will open it, or they will open it, and that is that.
In this case, I have not read the search warrant, and on none of the social media or news stories have I seen what the feds were searching for. But, whatever it is, if it will fit inside of the Liberty Safe that Nathan Hughes owns, then they are authorized to go in there and see if it is in there.
I do not believe that this happened even once.
I did not deride anybody, and especially not for being a lawyer.
I simply explained what was wrong about what had been posted.
Nowhere did I deride you or anybody else for not being a lawyer, and, after all, even lawyers can be wrong.
Your post, which I quoted, literally starts with "Consent is consent."
So, no, I am not intentionally being thick, and I do know how to ____ read.
And, yeah, they gave the combo. It changes nothing, legally, for Nathan Hughes. I get that you feel strongly that somehow it takes away his right to challenge the search, but nothing about Liberty giving the combination or the feds forcibly opening the safe is even relevant to the determination of whether the search with a warrant was lawful.
If this substitutes for argument in your mind, then so be it.
You are the one without a clue about the actual law.
Calling others retarded while being wrong is ironic.
I told you to stop playing lawyer, because your are wrong, and you posted up the results of a search engine search for warrantless car searches by consent, which has ZERO to do with this situation. This was not deriding you for not being a lawyer. I asked you to post case law supporting your position, and you posted something about consent car searches. That is when I realized you did not really understand the concepts involved.
You are simply over your head. You probably know it by now, but pride will not let you back down. I have tried to explain to you how it works in the real world of the Fourth Amendment and search warrants.
There is nothing I posted above that is wrong as a matter of the actual law. Therefore, no, I am not "retarded."
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Stay thirsty.
Make sure to reply with more cusswords and personal insults.
If I were a first year law student, would that make me wrong?
Your explanation was a link from an internet search that lead you to law enforcement searches of vehicles by consent, which does not extend to locked compartments.
My explanation is correct in the context of search warrants, and it would be correct even if I was a first year law student who thinks he is Johnnie Cochran.
Your explanation was a link from an internet search that lead you to law enforcement searches of vehicles by consent, which does not extend to locked compartments.
My explanation is correct in the context of search warrants, and it would be correct even if I was a first year law student who thinks he is Johnnie Cochran.
The problem is anything they found in that safe can and will be used against him legally, personally, financially, etc. Homemade porn, cocaine, stacks of cash, his family bible and photos, anything you might want to keep “safe”. All of those things could be used to hurt him, that’s why you put them- In. A. Safe.
They could have said, “Unfortunately, sir, we can’t help you, we need a court order to release that code.” … “I understand, sir, but we make safes. People use their safes to protect their most valuable, important, and sensitive personal possessions, so I’m sure you understand our need to be ordered by a court.”
Is it “worth” a boycott? Yes. As are their political contributions.
The left likes to buy up companies built by and for traditional American interests and use our loyalty to get us to financially cover the costs of our dismantling. I think we should financially destroy those companies.
Or you could do one better and not allow them to keep the combination, in which case they could not provide the combination to law enforcement even with a court order, because they would be unable to do so.
And they require a court order now, even if you do allow them to keep it, in response to this incident and the backlash.
But political contributions, well, that is another thing entirely. Not much to be done about that. It's in the pubic record forever.
And what assurance would I have of that? The words of a company that just betrayed me? Hard pass.
Yeah, they require it now, eh? As a consumer, what assurances do I have of that? Again, their word. Again, hard pass.
You seem to be advocating for viewing this company as reformed, as a customer, based on the strength of their word. The problem is they are proven liars… so why would I accept any fruit from that poison tree?
All fair points. They have certainly done some damage to their reputation.
This has always been their policy, though. We just heard about this one because of the J6 involvement. I wonder how many times this has happened in the past.
I also wonder how many other safe manufacturers have the same policy? I bet many of them are changing policies even now.
This has always been their policy, though. We just heard about this one because of the J6 involvement. I wonder how many times this has happened in the past.
I also wonder how many other safe manufacturers have the same policy? I bet many of them are changing policies even now.
When you say this:
And you do this:
It counterfeits this:
www.libertysafe.com
Because you have proven yourself a liar.
And you do this:
It counterfeits this:
Combination Removal Request Form
Combination Removal Request Form I authorize Liberty Safe to remove any combination or reset code associated with my safe from their records. I understand by submitting this form, Liberty Safe will be unable to support service requests for my lock. Before filling out the form below, depending on...
www.libertysafe.com
Because you have proven yourself a liar.
It’s not so much that they’ve damaged their reputation, as it is they’ve exposed their character. The thing about camouflage is that it doesn’t work if you’re skylined.
I bet very few safe companies have the same policy regarding phone calls from supposed LE. I also bet the number of safe companies that have that policy and also max out contributions to anti-2A politicians is infinitely small. Officially my guess would be 1.
The reason I think few companies have that policy is because of liability. Let’s talk about how Liberty even knew it was LE. What was that process of checking the credentials like? Liberty also said they “verified” the warrant, I wonder what that entails? Then they used what law or case law to render their judgement that opening the safe was inevitable? Did they seek legal counsel?
The court order is, with these topics in consideration, the way the court removes the responsibility for verifying from the company. The court takes responsibility. Without that, Liberty can now share with the world how they knew all of the information relevant to this case, with enough certainty to render judgement.
Last edited:
You avoid all these products?? https://us.pg.com/brands/
If so good job. Nike, Adidas, google, Ben n Jerrys, Bank of America (closed my acct), LuLu Lemon, Goodyear Tires, NFL (not one game since "End Racism" was painted on the field), the MLB, NHL (I am excited to watch again bc they got rid of Pride nights), I never drank Bud Light it was/is piss, all fast food...I do a lot better than most people.
Some companies are VERY hard to avoid like Youtube (I watch what I can on Rumble but its small right now),
THANK GOD the UFC will never go woke!! Dana White is the MAN!!!
You're obviously right. I inherited a liberty (could be a Cannon, tomato, tomato) that was locked open. Couldn't find the code anywhere. Called for the master too reset. It was a royal pain in the dick to get and took weeks with all sorts of proof that I owned the safe and it was locked OPEN.
I agree.
I also agree that they may well have gained entry eventually.
And they may have also had legal access to the contents of the safe.
But without a court order Liberty owns all of that.
Last edited:
For $500 Get a used document vault thats like 30 years old with a S&G Group 2 lock and glass relocker. 1300 pounds not including any shit inside. Actual 350⁰ 1 hour rating.
Attachments
Those dash cams are fucking priceless are they not? Record everything, we are recorded at every turn just pay it forward and repay in kind .
