Any Veterans here have military style rifles? Be careful who you ask to help move.

[4506517]

I have a hard time buying that law enforcement was primarily concerned with "the ordnance".

Whenever we come across something that is or might even be questionable, we stop, cordon off the area, and contact our hazardous devices unit. We stop what we are doing. I saw no evidence of any type of HDU involvement here. Our guys take no chances. We've had a member injured, and the don't play. At all.

Secondly, HDU units are overseen at the Federal level by the FBI if I am not mistaken. The members go for a lengthy training session at Redstone (sp?) Arsenal in Alabama. They are taught recognition, handling, disposal, etc. They are taught what to look for (color, markings, letters, symbols, etc) that might indicate that "ordnance" is live or inert.

I can "kind of" see where some of you are coming from on that angle. If anyone guesses wrong and there is a detonation, the consequences could be disastrous (on many different levels) in a residential area.

However, once they discovered the "ordnance" was inert, which I'm pretty sure they did because they started pulling it out and laying it out in the backyard, something you would NOT do with live items, what is the point in dragging out the rifles? I have never seen our HDU deal with small arms. Not saying they haven't but that's not what they do.

What I imagine happened, was that someone felt as though they were "protecting the community" and got a little carried away with themselves. Wouldn't be the first time. I've seen fellow officers get carried away, stand up on the soap box, and allow personal feelings start dictating their actions.

I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

 

[Telecaster]

If you actually read any of the real news articles, you'll note that the kerfuffle as far as authorities were concerned was over the ordnance, not the rifles. The rifles were just innocent victims. I would expect the presence of what may or may not be live ordnance in a residential neighborhood to cause a scene in any state in the union. Further, there won't be any charges filed, and he's getting his guns back.

As an aside, you have completely misinterpreted that lesson. It is not applicable here . . .

Links would be nice. The OP's link says nothing like that.

 

[Muss Muggins]

Links would be nice. The OP's link says nothing like that.

I try to do my own research, and I expect others to do the same. If you follow me at all, you know I generally provide a followup link with more detail. Occasionally, I get tired of doing other people's homework, especially when posters get so entrenched in their positions. I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind, so I don't try . . .

As for other contentions in this thread, all I've got is this. Nobody knows how long it took to determine the ordnance was not live. Nobody knows the condition in which it was stored in the house. Nobody knows who inspected it, or how that was accomplished. Nobody knows if removing it a piece at a time after each piece was determined inert in turn was why the ordnance ended up in the back yard, and nobody wants to take the chance that there's an actual live grenade, or more likely blasting cap, buried under all that stuff.

Finally, nobody knows why the homeowner was sent for a mental evaluation.

I feel sad for my country when LEO's are immediately disbelieved and accused of collusion . . .

 

[Telecaster]

See, the whole idea of this forum thingy is that someone does some research, finds something he thinks others would be interested in, and shares his research. We all benefit.

 

[BB57]

If you actually read any of the real news articles, you'll note that the kerfuffle as far as authorities were concerned was over the ordnance, not the rifles. The rifles were just innocent victims. I would expect the presence of what may or may not be live ordnance in a residential neighborhood to cause a scene in any state in the union. Further, there won't be any charges filed, and he's getting his guns back.

As an aside, you have completely misinterpreted that lesson. It is not applicable here . . .

Feel free to post links to those "real" news articles.

I paused the video and saw a couple of WWII era water filled practice bombs, some blue painted training ordinance, a number of hand grenades and a couple of mines. You can find inert and training ordinance in just about any decent surplus shop and on-line. If the officers on site thought it was live they would not have moved it. It doesn't take a genius to determine if grenade is inert or not.

More importantly, based on what you are claiming about the rifles, if any of the ordinance was live, the man would not be getting his rifles back.

"Getting them back" is also "getting them back after being stacked like cord wood in the back of an SUV, moved in an out of an evidence room, and generally abused". Let's say he had an excellent condition 1903A1. It won't be in excellent condition any more, so he will have suffered a significant loss in value of his property at the hands of the police. Will he get that back? No way. They'll log the weapon and the serial number not the condition and he'll be hard pressed to prove the damage, even though the cause of the damage is obvious.

I expect officers to uphold the law, not run around confiscating legally owned personal property to pander to a political agenda or appease neighbors who are nervous and or have no clue what they are talking about.

I wasn't born in a police state but it sure seems like I'm living in one.

Sadly, the current trend is to justify officers doing things like this in the interests of public safety and at the expense of individual liberty or due process. More alarmingly is the attitude that if you come to the attention of the police you must have done something wrong, or if innocent of this, you at least deserve it for something else you probably did the police didn't know about.

This man was shown absolutely no respect for either his military service or his constitutional rights. I took an oath to defend the Constitution. So did you. That oath does not expire.

 

[ParadiseRoad]

I just responded to a post this past week listing some of my revolvers.
This is probably a warning of what not to do, anyone can see this forum
and when Big Bother wants the info on who I am he will probably get
it. So those type of responses for me are over.
oh, I must have lost those over the weekend as I can't find any of those.

...your safe was in your canoe when it capsized in 12,000 feet of water...

 

[ParadiseRoad]

...the display of the items on the lawn seems to me to be a stunt for the media's benefit...

...but I can't prove it...

...so...the jury will disregard the last statement...

...proceed gentlemen...

 

[Doug M.]

Muss is not wrong in his concerns about jumping on LE, but ...

As my old friend Pat Rogers used to say, policing is regional. Where Muss lives, I suspect, and where I do, that would have been a big nothing. I can think of people in the agency for which I am the legal advisor who would give such a caller an epic reaming, IF the caller was lucky enough to avoid being arrested.

However, sadly, there are places in this country, especially places where the political organizations of chiefs (I'm think of something similar to the Major City Police Chiefs) would flip out and give orders that are insane and probably unlawful. Living so near to Seattle, I an see stuff like that happening in places near me, and I can assure you that hammering people that take such stupid positions is not popular. I've written some emails advocating charing command personnel and the like that have caused major league bloomer bunching by the snowflakes.

I doubt the victim of this lost his firearms rights, as a temporary detention of this nature is of no legal effect. However, if he does not have a lawyer, he needs one. I'd be taking houses and making examples. Doing that here would likely be filed as a charge that mandates forfeiture of government employment for life.

 

[Engineer1911]

The news reporter was ignorant of firearms and apparently had a severe case of cranial rectosis. The police just displayed incredible disrespect for personal property and arrogance handling vintage firearms.

 

[s&wchad]

I deleted several replies to this thread.

You're welcome to express your opinions about the information reported, but focus on the issue... NOT each other.

 

[GaryS]

No matter what the kefluffle was due to, I would expect the police not to damage or expose the rifles to risk of damage while they were investigating the allegation.

Remember that the City of New Orleans had to pay out settlements to the people whose guns the illegally confiscated after Katrina. Due regard and caution would not consist of placing those firearms in barrels so that they would rust into uselessness before they were returned.

If I were arrested and my truck towed, I would expect that the police would take steps to make sure that it wasn't damaged while in the custody and care of the tow company.

If you actually read any of the real news articles, you'll note that the kerfuffle as far as authorities were concerned was over the ordnance, not the rifles. The rifles were just innocent victims. I would expect the presence of what may or may not be live ordnance in a residential neighborhood to cause a scene in any state in the union. Further, there won't be any charges filed, and he's getting his guns back.

As an aside, you have completely misinterpreted that lesson. It is not applicable here . . .

 

[Absalom]

As Muss says, we actually know very little. This incident was so minor that very little media attention resulted, which makes huffing and puffing about media stunts not quite appropriate to the situation.

What seems to get lost in all this kerfuffle is that the relatives found the stuff and called the police. This was NOT a case of authorities persecuting a gun owner.

So police came and checked the stuff out, and after it was determined that none of it was dangerous or illegal, the police was done. That's what we pay police to do. There is no evidence any rifles were damaged, and it seems unreasonable to expect white-glove treatment or construct potential-damage scenarios just to have another theoretical reason to be upset at the police.

If the owner has reason for complaint, it would be against whoever decided to call the cops rather than discuss with him first whether these guns and other items were a reason for worry.

 

[Muley Gil]

Don't forget the drive by bayonetings and sword slashings.

Oh, but it does happen!

I was a patrolman in a small city (about 33K population) and my partner and I received a call that someone had been stabbed. When we got on the scene, the victim said that he was walking down the street when a car rolled up, the driver got out and then ran over to the victim and stabbed him. The assailant got back in his car and drove off.

 

[BB57]

.../

/....So police came and checked the stuff out, and after it was determined that none of it was dangerous or illegal, the police was done. That's what we pay police to do. There is no evidence any rifles were damaged, and it seems unreasonable to expect white-glove treatment or construct potential-damage scenarios just to have another theoretical reason to be upset at the police.

If the owner has reason for complaint, it would be against whoever decided to call the cops rather than discuss with him first whether these guns and other items were a reason for worry.

If you watch the video you'll see the rifles stacked in layers about 10 high in the back of an SUV. I would not stack any pf m,y vintage, collectible rifles that way. Why? Because the bolts and sights will ding the stocks of adjacent rifles.

It's also obvious the police didn't just come and check them out, they removed them from the the site. That's more than was required to determine that none of it was dangerous or illegal.

To your second point, you're basically saying that it's ok for the police to respond to a complaint from a neighbor or a family member and use that as the basis to seize personal property, even when it is valid on the face of the matter that the complaint isn't valid.

The only property that should have been removed is any ordinance that could not be determined on site to be inert. There was no need to remove the inert ordinance at all, and there was no need to remove the rifles as they removed the owner for a 72 hour mental health evaluation. *If* he failed that evaluation there was ample time to confiscate the weapons, or more appropriately have the owner identify a competent individual to take charge of them, before the owner was released to return home.

That's upholding the Constitution, that's appropriately and ethically balancing individual rights with public safety, and we have a right to expect that from law enforcement officers because THAT is what we pay them to do.

_____

It really is that simple. If you are willing to allow the police to violate individual rights, follow unlawful orders, and/or exceed their authority, let alone defend them when they do that, then you are willing to accept a police state and in the process condone spitting on the flag and the Constitution.

 

[loknload]

If this is the story I think it is, it was local outside of Philly? The Philly news reported it?
The guy was a Vietnam Vet and yes that was his collection. He lived alone and bothered no one. I guess that's what made him suspicious?
Anyway supposedly there was a suicide note found somewhere in the residence?
That is what lead to this by family members.
To my knowledge the gentleman was not charged with anything and I've seen no updates on this either,,,,Imagine that?
That's what I know about this story.... If you know more please add to it or correct me if I'm wrong!
Look out for the Red Flags!

 

[GaryS]

With a bayonet or with a saber?

Oh, but it does happen!

I was a patrolman in a small city (about 33K population) and my partner and I received a call that someone had been stabbed. When we got on the scene, the victim said that he was walking down the street when a car rolled up, the driver got out and then ran over to the victim and stabbed him. The assailant got back in his car and drove off.

 

[Bozz10mm]

I wonder if the police will bring the rifles back to his house or will he have to rent a U Haul truck and pick them up himself.

 

[Absalom]

.....
It really is that simple. If you are willing to allow the police to violate individual rights, follow unlawful orders, and/or exceed their authority, let alone defend them when they do that, then you are willing to accept a police state and in the process condone spitting on the flag and the Constitution.

It is indeed simple: So far this is a simple case of unsupported conjecture.

There is no evidence of violated rights, unlawful orders, or exceeded authority so far; you made all that up.

And I'll be polite and not make fun of your silly comment about spitting on the flag and the Constitution.

 

[delcrossv]

It is indeed simple: So far this is a simple case of unsupported conjecture.

There is no evidence of violated rights, unlawful orders, or exceeded authority so far; you made all that up.

And I'll be polite and not make fun of your silly comment about spitting on the flag and the Constitution.

And some will keep singing that tune, until they come for their stuff.

Niemöller much?

 

[gman51]

It's a shame a person can't hardly show off their gun collection without possibly causing unwanted repercussions. I guess it is that way with anything of value but these days anything pertaining to possession of guns is better kept to ourselves.