Liberty Gun safes screwed themselves

Holy shit....talk about putting the gun to your own head....

I don't know anything about their gun safes, but I find it hard to believe that I could not get into one with my side grinder, a good size pack of quality cut off wheels, and a little free time.

Probably should have stopped after, "I don't know anything..."

So they only provide access to their safes codes if there is a valid warrant. 

Should they quit doing that? No matter what the warrant is for?

They, and anyone else, should tell the fbi to go fuck themselves if they make such a request without a warrant, which is what happened in this case.

Newsweek says the FBI had a warrant. Whats the truth? PBD podcast is saying they didnt

https://www.newsweek.com/liberty-safe-responds-backlash-anger-fbi-code-1825252

"...Earlier on Wednesday, Liberty Safe had said the FBI requested the access code to a safe on August 30, which it gave after seeing proof of a warrant. The safe belongs to 34-year-old Nathan Hughes, who has been charged with felony civil disorder and several misdemeanors relating to the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

"Our company's protocol is to provide access codes to law enforcement if a warrant grants them access to a property," Liberty Safe said on Tuesday evening. "After receiving the request, we received proof of the valid warrant, and only then did we provide them with an access code."

In the statement posted to social media, Liberty Safe said it was committed to protecting its customers' personal property and 2nd Amendment rights, "and has repeatedly denied requests for access codes without a warrant in the past."

If they had a valid warrant, I see no issue with it. If they didn’t, that’s wrong in my opinion.

I don't think they had a choice. Going forward, they need to let every customer know that they can either purge all information they retain on individual safes or that if they get a warrant, they will abide by the law whether they agree with it or not. Legally they have no choice. Also, it's kind of a non-issue. If the FBI wants in the safe, they'll get in the safe. It's just a matter of how much effort is exerted.

This is also a reason I think people shouldn't use cloud storage. I've read that google has determined that some people have done offensive stuff and shut down their acct. They had no more access to their customer info, correspondence, and such. Talk about getting crippled for being nonconformist.

TM

If you’re a legitimate company with the customer list that Liberty has…or…had…? You should have the balls to go before a fucking judge and “adjudicate” the situation YOURSELF/YOURSELVES to show the fucking DUE DILIGENCE your customer base expects.

Some of you, in here, are absolutely scary followers of a narrative that serves the following message…

You people get the government you deserve. 

I’m jus’ knowin’…

Boy....I just don't know that I see what we should be outraged about here.....but I guess this is 2023 and both sides are full of triggered snowflakes so rage away....

Here's an idea....don't have shit in your gun safe that you wouldn't want the Feds to see.

Sincerely,

Someone who owns 3 gun safes and somewhere north of 50 guns.

Weak take, but you own guns, so you're cool. Lol

Then explain more please.... 

They had a search warrant right? 

What more do ya'll outragers want?

If I remember right, Apple refused to give the FBI access to the phones of the husband and wife terrorists that shot up the office Christmas party in San Bernardino a few years back. 

The FBI sought a court order to make Apple unlock the phone, Apple fought the suit, arguing that breaking its encryption would put all users at privacy risk, and won an initial hearing.
FBI eventually dropped the suit after finding a third-party(Israeli security company NSO Group) vendor to unlock the phone.
 

If they have a valid warrant a third party vendor still has no right to give them access to anything in my home or from my home using back door means.

I suppose that's a fair point.

So that leads me to....if they had a warrant and you had nothing to hide, why wouldn't you just open the safe for them?

Let me guess "mY FrEEdUms"

they probably just found his porn stash and a fleshlight

Just a suggestion from an old idiot.  Don't do shit that involves the govt or it's agencies.  

Staying out of trouble is easier than GETTING out of trouble.  If you just can't help yourself...then I guess you just like trouble.

If I'm the company that made the safe and I'm being dragged into this situation?

I want a -JUDGE- to tell me that said document pertains to and/or provides the legal authority for ME &/or MY COMPANY to OPEN SOME-ONE-ELSE'S SAFE. 

FURTHERMORE, I'd want my own attorneys to provide me with the understanding of MY FUTURE LIABILITY as it pertains to THE PRIVATE CITIZENS RIGHTS THAT I AM BEING ASKED TO VIOLATE PER A DOCUMENT THAT ...

I

AM

NOT

A

PARTY

TO.

Some of us are waaaaay to "preconditioned" to roll over on issues that we don't take the time to "think on" about and ask the important questions.

But, I digress. No worries. Carry on. Nothing to see here.

ps-anyone ever follow up on how Apple handles this stuff..."usually"...?

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. You're suggesting to not comply with a warrant?

TM

I know exactly what you're saying.  This is a bucket of constitutional worms.  

If the govt has a valid and legal search warrant...give them access.  If it turns out the warrant has flaws...defense can use that as exclusionary evidence.

If it was a bad search...there is recourse.

My point was...don't start no trouble...won't be no trouble.  Not a hard and fast rule but not negligible either.

Why do they keep the code? After it's sold it's not theirs anymore. What am I missing here?

They may have a right to not cooperate with law enforcement. I’m not going to dispute that as I don’t know that exact law when it comes to that sort of thing. Let’s say a custodian in a workplace who has keys to every room is approached by the FBI. They come in with a warrant and say here’s the warrant for X room that Y person has their desk in, I’d imagine the janitor is going to comply and unlock the door with their keys. Maybe they aren’t specifically required to, but they’ll cooperate.

Seems simple to me. If law enforcement has a warrant, they can and will do a legal search of whatever it is they have the warrant to search.

Is there any reason to believe that any of that didn't happen? I think it's a safe bet that at a minimum they consulted their attorney and were advised to comply. And you have to believe that in that business, you know that things like this will happen. While I don't agree with "that" they were given a warrant to do that, I believe that they were given a legal warrant. Looking at it another way, let's say that the owner of the safe was a pedophile, and they caught him/her with a kidnapped child in the apartment. Cameras were wired to a server in the safe. I'd be tripping over myself to get that safe open for the feds to fry that person. So, to remove myself from picking and choosing who is morally right, I'd follow the warrant.

TM

Liberty Safe, as established in the Apple legal case, HAD NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY to open the safe.

Aka, "Legal Precedent" as established in the aforementioned Apple case...involving giving ATF/FBI access to some-one's phone data when they requested Apple "unlock" it for them.

For the record: We ALL do understand that the warrant is served to the INDIVIDUALS or PARTIES named in said warrant...don't we?

Again...Apple...case law...precedent...as a society that's based in the meaning of words...we've "Been there, done that". Apple had NO legal responsibility to open that phone for the gov't. So...the gov't had to "unlock" it themselves.

So, if the FBI comes to me and asks me to open SOME-ONE-ELSE's SAFE...I'd ask them for a court order to do so & that court order would require my business entity to be named as having the legal responsibility to open that safe...and I'd expect the gov't to assume all legal liability in -forcing me- to do so. Why "legal liability"...? Because, again...IT'S NOT MY SAFE.

This is all fundamental constitutional law.

That was at the heart of the Apple case along with other fundamental legal requirements of search and seizure.

So you can re-enter the safe because you forgot the code.

Like most stuff now, there's probably a code that opens every one of them. No matter what you chose.