one safe place said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

---

lol, what a take. The choice of opening the safe or having it destroyed should have been left up to the owner of the safe. Liberty potentially benefits from the FBI destroying it, since they might sell another safe.

---

They might have if they'd let the FBI destroy the safe instead of betraying their customer. Doubt that dude is going to be a repeat customer now.

Picard said:

---

How many times can one plane crash???

---

PlaneCrashGuy, Shanked Punt, .......hmmmm

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

one safe place said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

---

lol, what a take. The choice of opening the safe or having it destroyed should have been left up to the owner of the safe. Liberty potentially benefits from the FBI destroying it, since they might sell another safe.

---

The owner lost the right to make that choice when lawn enforcement was able to present probable cause he committed a crime.

Again, the system is working as designed.

---

So he's guilty without a trial now?

Thanks Comrade

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

one safe place said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

---

lol, what a take. The choice of opening the safe or having it destroyed should have been left up to the owner of the safe. Liberty potentially benefits from the FBI destroying it, since they might sell another safe.

---

The owner lost the right to make that choice when lawn enforcement was able to present probable cause he committed a crime.

Again, the system is working as designed.

---

Big government liberals are all about taking rights. As others have tried to educate you, "lawn" enforcement was given the code by Liberty without them having any legal responsibility to do so.

aggielostinETX said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

one safe place said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

---

lol, what a take. The choice of opening the safe or having it destroyed should have been left up to the owner of the safe. Liberty potentially benefits from the FBI destroying it, since they might sell another safe.

---

The owner lost the right to make that choice when lawn enforcement was able to present probable cause he committed a crime.

Again, the system is working as designed.

---

So he's guilty without a trial now?

Thanks Comrade

---

I didn't say he was guilty. I said law enforcement presented probable cause.

Slicer97 said:

---

one safe place said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

---

lol, what a take. The choice of opening the safe or having it destroyed should have been left up to the owner of the safe. Liberty potentially benefits from the FBI destroying it, since they might sell another safe.

---

They might have if they'd let the FBI destroy the safe instead of betraying their customer. Doubt that dude is going to be a repeat customer now.

---

Yep, he won't ever buy another one, and many others besides him won't buy one either. Huge blunder on the part of Liberty Safe.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

one safe place said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

---

lol, what a take. The choice of opening the safe or having it destroyed should have been left up to the owner of the safe. Liberty potentially benefits from the FBI destroying it, since they might sell another safe.

---

The owner lost the right to make that choice when lawn enforcement was able to present probable cause he committed a crime.

Again, the system is working as designed.

---

So he's guilty without a trial now?

Thanks Comrade

---

I didn't say he was guilty. I said law enforcement presented probable cause.

---

And you know what that probable cause was and who signed off on it?

You have him guiltily in your mind.

one safe place said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

one safe place said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I think that Liberty was acting reasonable because the safe was either going to be opened by Liberty or destroyed.

---

lol, what a take. The choice of opening the safe or having it destroyed should have been left up to the owner of the safe. Liberty potentially benefits from the FBI destroying it, since they might sell another safe.

---

They might have if they'd let the FBI destroy the safe instead of betraying their customer. Doubt that dude is going to be a repeat customer now.

---

Yep, he won't ever buy another one, and many others besides him won't buy one either. Huge blunder on the part of Liberty Safe.

---

Yeah...when a large part of your business model is based on "America" and "Liberty", this is probably not the best move to make...

Law enforcement don't have to prove guilt to search someone in America. The system is working exactly like it was designed to.

Correct, but they opted to assist the investigation, which is both legal and reasonable.

Helping apprehend **suspected** criminals is a reasonable thing for any law abiding citizen to do.

**edited for accuracy.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Correct, but they opted to assist the investigation, which is both legal and reasonable.

Helping apprehend criminals is a reasonable thing for any law abiding citizen to do.

---

Maybe not for a safe company named "Liberty" for someone accused of underdetermined act while expressing their liberties.

Maybe change their name to "Brown Shirt Safes".

aggielostinETX said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Correct, but they opted to assist the investigation, which is both legal and reasonable.

Helping apprehend criminals is a reasonable thing for any law abiding citizen to do.

---

Maybe not for a safe company named "Liberty" for someone accused of underdetermined act while expressing their liberties.

Maybe change their name to "Brown Shirt Safes".

---

You'll have to take that up with their marketing guy. My point stands on its own.

1) Legal? Perhaps. Need an attorney familiar with privacy/property laws to weigh in. And what agreements the buyer may have signed at the time of purchase.

2)Reasonable? No. Unless there is a verfiable concern that someone's life is in immediate danger and opening the safe would mitigate that risk, it's unreasonable.

3) Apprehend a criminal? Dude in question isn't a criminal yet. Just a suspected one.

There's no way to look at how this went down that makes Liberty look good here. Legal or not, what they did was incredibly stupid for the future of their business when they could have also legally done the opposite of what they did.

The ATF didn't make SBRs and cans NFA items.

The NFA'34, which was an act of congress, did that.

The BTAFE (ATF) as we know it didn't even exist until 1972. Established by the GCA'68 which was a knee-jerk act of congress after JFK was shot.

Good grief, this thread…

I'm both embarrassed for you (someone needs to be since you're apparently incapable of shame) and embarrassed that you have an ag tag at the same time.

Your posts in this thread just continue to beclown you with zero self-awareness but you just keep digging deeper. It's amazing.

It's so reasonable that those dudes will be out of business by this time next year.

LOL.

Slicer97 said:

---

1) Legal? Perhaps. Need an attorney familiar with privacy/property laws to weigh in. And what agreements the buyer may have signed at the time of purchase.

2)Reasonable? No. Unless there is a verfiable concern that someone's life is in immediate danger and opening the safe would mitigate that risk, it's unreasonable.

3) Apprehend a criminal? Dude in question isn't a criminal yet. Just a suspected one.

There's no way to look at how this went down that makes Liberty look good here. Legal or not, what they did was incredibly stupid for the future of their business when they could have also legally done the opposite of what they did.

---

Correct on all accounts. As to the legal, that will have to be decided by an attorney (likely will find some who say yay and some who say nay, confusion and lack of clarity is what keeps so many of them employed) and not by a message board poster with grammar deficiencies.

It was not reasonable, nor was it smart. The marketplace will determine how dumb the decision was.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Correct, but they opted to assist the investigation, which is both legal and reasonable.

Helping apprehend criminals is a reasonable thing for any law abiding citizen to do.

---

Maybe not for a safe company named "Liberty" for someone accused of underdetermined act while expressing their liberties.

Maybe change their name to "Brown Shirt Safes".

---

You'll have to take that up with their marketing guy. My point stands on its own.

---

You made a point, its bad, but its a point.

Liberty made a bad call and hopefully they suffer the consequences.

Slicer97 said:

---

1) Legal? Perhaps. Need an attorney familiar with privacy/property laws to weigh in. And what agreements the buyer may have signed at the time of purchase.

2)Reasonable? No. Unless there is a verfiable concern that someone's life is in immediate danger and opening the safe would mitigate that risk, it's unreasonable.

3) Apprehend a criminal? Dude in question isn't a criminal yet. Just a suspected one.

There's no way to look at how this went down that makes Liberty look good here. Legal or not, what they did was incredibly stupid for the future of their business when they could have also legally done the opposite of what they did.

---

Bingo, for those defending Liberty take the L

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

aggielostinETX said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Correct, but they opted to assist the investigation, which is both legal and reasonable.

Helping apprehend criminals is a reasonable thing for any law abiding citizen to do.

---

Maybe not for a safe company named "Liberty" for someone accused of underdetermined act while expressing their liberties.

Maybe change their name to "Brown Shirt Safes".

---

You'll have to take that up with their marketing guy. My point stands on its own.

---

HTH

Logos Stick said:

---

It's so reasonable that those dudes will be out of business by this time next year.

LOL.

---

Source: "trust me bro"

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Correct, but they opted to assist the investigation, which is both legal and reasonable.

Helping apprehend criminals is a reasonable thing for any law abiding citizen to do.

---

how do you know he is a criminal. he hasnt been tried. nice contradiction.

Liberty should change the company name to Safelite.




Oooops ...

Already taken.

and for the ones defending Liberty Safe, who do you think is their customer base? the same ones that used to drink Bud Light. great marketing efforts on both.

Harry Stone said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Correct, but they opted to assist the investigation, which is both legal and reasonable.

Helping apprehend criminals is a reasonable thing for any law abiding citizen to do.

---

how do you know he is a criminal. he hasnt been tried. nice contradiction.

---

You caught me, it should say suspected criminal. I'll edit since that's what you're worried about on a Friday afternoon.

You mean kinda like how Liberty had no other reason to turn over the code besides they wanted to?

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

It's so reasonable that those dudes will be out of business by this time next year.

LOL.

---

Source: "trust me bro"

---

Gun owners and those who value the second amendment don't forget.

Bookmark the thread "bro".

Libertys decision was weapons grade stupid, as was their response.

You really should stop digging. Refusing to take the L in the manner you have is something I've never witnessed on this board.

Now, now. Let's be reasonable.

To the progressives in this country, the government has the right to see anything it wants to so long as it does not deal with human sexuality in any form.

Aside from that, the federal government is all powerful and we are the peasants.

You're (presumably) a grown man telling another to "take the L" on an internet message board, so I'll try to say this in your language:

Scores posted.

Lol, you called my "bro". Are you not a grown man?

"Source: Trust me bro" is a pretty well known meme on message boards.

I thought you'd recognize the joke.