Gun owner checked in school lockdown


PDA






hilljack22
March 17, 2005, 01:17 PM
http://www.indystar.com/articles/1/229866-9071-092.html

Gun owner checked in school lockdown


By John Tuohy
john.tuohy@indystar.com
March 17, 2005


Nine Center Grove schools continued a lockdown today as the Johnson County sheriff's department and federal agents investigated a man who recently purchased $5,000 in firearms.

The lockdown started Tuesday at West Grove Elementary School when students playing at recess saw a man in camouflage holding a gun in a wooded area. All the Center Grove schools were secured Wednesday and today.

Police received a tip about a man who recently bought a cache of weapons, some of them assault-type guns, and went to his home to interview him, said Johnson County Sheriff's Col. Doug Cox.

The man lives "very close'' to the school and owns camouflage clothing but he denied being in the he woods, Cox said.

Cox said the guns appear to have been purchased legally, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is double-checking his purchase records.

As a precaution, detectives asked the man's relatives to hold the guns while the investigation continues.

"The guns have been removed from the home,'' Cox said.

He said the man is so far not considered a suspect but police "just want to make sure everything checks out with the weapons.''

He said police were very mindful of the fatal shooting of an Indianapolis police officer last August by a mentally unstable man who had legally bought a number of assault-style weapons.

"Even if he wasn't at the school we want to take a close look at him,'' Cox said. "Our eyebrows have been raised. We remember what happened in Indianapolis.''

Center Grove schools Superintendent Candace Milhon-Baer said the decision to lockdown was made jointly with the sheriff's office.

She said school officials will decide later whether to cancel after school programs.

She said students and teachers are accustomed to lockdown procedures because the district conducts drills.

"We have experienced no undue stress,'' Milhon-Baer said.

She said recess will be held in classrooms or the gym. "It is just like we do on inclement weather days,'' Milhon said.

There are 7,100 students in the district.

Read tomorrow's Indianapolis Star for more details about this story.


Comments?

(I guess owning some guns and camoflage at the same time makes you even more EVIL :banghead: )

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun owner checked in school lockdown" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ceetee
March 17, 2005, 01:29 PM
People will only see the $5,000 figure and think, "Holy crap! That's a lotta guns!"

Nobody will bother to tell them that's less than a fourth of the cost of a really classy O/U trap gun...

madkiwi
March 17, 2005, 01:32 PM
I can't even begin to comment on this. It is wrong on so many levels.

I'll just tackle one-"Even if he wasn't at the school we want to take a close look at him,'' Cox said. "Our eyebrows have been raised. We remember what happened in Indianapolis.''

Their eyebrows have been raised? THEIR EYEBROWS?????!!?? They should lay off THE CRACK PIPE THEY ARE SMOKING!

I mean what does this guy have to do with what happened somewhere else? And even that case was about a cop being shot, not a school issue. :rolleyes:

madkiwi

Missourigunner
March 17, 2005, 01:38 PM
If the guns were legally purchased, then whats the beef ? Is it against the Law to bring a gun within a certain distance of this school? $5000 doesn't buy that great amount of guns, especially if you are buying quality weapons. The story reads like they don't have a clue as to Who the kids saw in the woods. This is Wrong. :cuss: :fire: :banghead:

hkOrion
March 17, 2005, 01:41 PM
he should have bought some SKS's or some other more inexpensive "assault type weapons". then he'd be okay, right? what's next - someone buys more that one knife at a store and the cops come rushing in becuase they remember what happened at the local Chinese All-you-can-eat restaurant? It's for the Sesame Beef!

He should have told them to go pound salt.

spacemanspiff
March 17, 2005, 01:49 PM
gee, i guess when i win the lotto i shouldnt rush out and buy that $50,000 worth of guns, huh?

ScottsGT
March 17, 2005, 01:50 PM
OK, I'm going to play Devils Advocate here. My Nomex undies are on.

How many of you have kids in school? How many reading this would be saying, "How did this nutcase slip throught the system" if the headlines were
"$5000 of Assault Weapons were used in school massacre" "We just cannot figure out how someone can buy this many firearms at once and not be checked out" Then the Brady Bunch and the elitist from DC would have more fuel for the AWB to be brought up again. Come on now, just how many of us has gone to the gunshops and bought $5K in firearms at once?
Now if it was just one Barrett he bought, that's a different story. Give the PD credit, they let his relatives hold his firearms, they did not confiscate them. I'd love to read the outcome of this story, but if it has a happy ending, the press will have no reason to report on it :cuss:

birddog
March 17, 2005, 01:57 PM
This guy wasn't just checked because he bought some guns. I'm willing to bet there is something else behind any suspicion that is floating around him.

Just as I am not willing to say "he is the guy stalking the schools" because he happened to buy some EBR's, neither would I say "he is NOT the guy" with no further information.

DelayedReaction
March 17, 2005, 02:00 PM
The lockdown started Tuesday at West Grove Elementary School when students playing at recess saw a man in camouflage holding a gun in a wooded area. All the Center Grove schools were secured Wednesday and today.

The focus isn't on the guy because he has guns, the focus is on the guy because children reported a man in camo holding a gun in the woods, and he lives nearby. I really don't have any problems with the police making sure everything is kosher, so long as this man's rights aren't being violated. As it stands now that does not appear to be the case.

Old Fuff
March 17, 2005, 02:05 PM
Concerning the $5,000.00 figure ...

Maybe he happened to get a big income tax refund? Many people over-withold just as an enforced kind of saving plan. Or he might have sold some other personal property because he wanted to by some firearms. Also, might some of the money gone for accessories and ammunition?

Obviously, from the news story (clearly slanted) no one can say at this point, but I noticed that the guns were apparently purchased at a gun store, so he must have gone through a background check ...

And if his intention was to attack the school he wouldn't have had to buy more then one firearm. While the news report(?) mentions a dollar figure it says nothing about the number of guns involved, or if this individual had any other guns from previous purchases.

That, and if the police could have come up with a justifiable reason they would have taken the guns themselves. The fact they didn't says a lot.

Highland Ranger
March 17, 2005, 02:06 PM
If we don't like your hobby politics or hell, why not you race or religon.

Replying to Scotts, you're going to need Nomex underwear.

"How did this nutcase slip throught the system"
If he had his background check then he didn't slip through, he bought the weapons legally. Had he not and been a real criminal, then no one would have known about him anyway right?

Come on now, just how many of us has gone to the gunshops and bought $5K in firearms at once?

Me. Several times. This tells me you are either a troll or not very experienced buying guns. Let's see, 5 grand can be 2 nice 1911's, or even two nice AR-15's. $5k is not a lot of money when it comes to guns.

Give the PD credit, they let his relatives hold his firearms, they did not confiscate them.

This couldn't be a more absurd statement. To illustrate, replace the word guns with car. We think we saw someone like you driving a car like yours kill a kid. Since we can't prove it, and can't charge you we'll ask that a realtive drive your car till you can prove you didn't do it.

He should have told them, charge me or get lost and called the NRA lawyers. This guy has a case for libel and should sue the PD . . . . . only way to teach them to behave.

How does the saying go about may your chains sit lightly?

garrettwc
March 17, 2005, 02:14 PM
Cox said the guns appear to have been purchased legally, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is double-checking his purchase records.

As a precaution, detectives asked the man's relatives to hold the guns while the investigation continues.

"The guns have been removed from the home,'' Cox said.

So he purchased these items legally, he has not been charged with anything, but his personal property has been taken from him without due process of law? As some have mentioned, this is wrong on several levels, and is a sign of how far our rights have slipped in the name of safety.

Highland, he shouldn't even have to call the lawyers. They should be lined up outside his door.

ScottsGT
March 17, 2005, 02:32 PM
Me. Several times. This tells me you are either a troll or not very experienced buying guns. Let's see, 5 grand can be 2 nice 1911's, or even two nice AR-15's. $5k is not a lot of money when it comes to guns.

OK, 480 posts. I'm no troll. Here on THR at least :D
Inexperienced at buying guns? Please try to convince my wife of that!! I've got about 16 guns all together. My most expensive was the $1300 I dropped on the M1a. And I saved for months and sold off a few items to buy that one. I guess it is all a prospective of ones income as to how much money one will usually drop at once on firearms. But I will make a wager that the average customer's bill in a gunshop is way below the $5K mark. Remember, we are a "Gun Nut family" here on THR, to us, buying $5K in firearms sounds like Christmas morning. To the average person with no firearms knowledge (that the press is selling papers to), it sounds like a maniac with too much money to spend. And how does the local PD look at someone like this? I remember years back that someone posted here that they received a phone call from the ATF, inquiring as to why they bought 6 or 9 (cannot remember the amount) in the past month.

If he had his background check then he didn't slip through, he bought the weapons legally. Had he not and been a real criminal, then no one would have known about him anyway right?

December 7, 1993 - Colin Ferguson - Didn't he go through the extensive California background check and waiting period? Remember, this is the incident that brought us the anti. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. I guess what I am saying is that not all back ground checks show up everything. And I'm going to shut up so if any antis are reading this, they won't think I'm on their side.

Sergeant Sabre
March 17, 2005, 02:40 PM
The man lives "very close'' to the school and owns camouflage clothing...

:barf:

JohnBT
March 17, 2005, 02:55 PM
If he was wearing camo then how did anyone see him? :cool:

Seriously though, they had to go talk to him because it's part of the job, but they completely over-reacted after that.

Who knows, it's likely not the entire story. The guy could be a well-known nut case who crawls around the neighborhood from time to time in his underwear and chases cars.

John

Hkmp5sd
March 17, 2005, 02:58 PM
Would have been interesting if he had told them to blow wind and get off his property from the beginning. I wonder if the fact he had purchased $5,000 worth of guns and "owned" camoflage clothing is enough to get a search warrant.

hilljack22
March 17, 2005, 03:01 PM
I will keep an eye on this and post up the follow-ups as the paper puts them out.

I understand the school and his proximity, but the "camo" comment just made me laugh.

jamz
March 17, 2005, 03:02 PM
This guy wasn't just checked because he bought some guns. I'm willing to bet there is something else behind any suspicion that is floating around him.

I agree with birddog. Just because the nooze story focuses on guns doesn't mean that the gun purchase alone have the cops suspicious.

Hell, I'm across the street from an elementary school and have bought 8 or 9 guns, 3 in the last month or two along, and I live in Massachusetts! No one's knocking on my door yet.

I bet this guy is a town alky, they got tipped that he'd been doing meth for a while, he'd been picked up doing odd things a few times lately*, and all of the sudden, purchasing a few guns- couple that with being seen carrying a gun right next to the school, and I'd say that this guy bears watching.


* or some such thing



-James

Ankeny
March 17, 2005, 03:07 PM
Look at the state of affairs around us today and what has transpired. We had 9/11, school shootings, nuts with guns cruising around from state to state shooting folks, etc. Our response is stuff like the Cops Grants, Homeland Security, Safe Schools Act, and so on.

If this guy was legitimately suspected of lurking around the playground armed and in camo, shouldn't the powers to be look at him under a microscope within reason and within the law? Of course they should. I too am scratching my head about why the investigation would continue if there is no reason to believe the guy is a threat other than he bought some guns. I don't have all of the particulars of the case so I won't even spectulate. But as a public school teacher, in a state where kids have been killed at school, I don't get my shorts in a knot if the cops make an error on the side of caution.

ScottsGT
March 17, 2005, 03:10 PM
The guy could be a well-known nut case who crawls around the neighborhood from time to time in his underwear and chases cars.

:banghead: There goes another hobby..... :banghead: :cuss:

280PLUS
March 17, 2005, 03:11 PM
Sounds like kid induced mass hysteria to me. Well it gives the police and the media something to do i guess.

:rolleyes:

rritter
March 17, 2005, 03:32 PM
Looking at the story, there's no way to tell if this is even the same man. Kids saw a man in the woods, wearing camo and with a gun. Cops noticed that a person who lives near the school spent a lot on guns recently. He also owns camouflage clothing. Has anyone from the school identified him as the same man they saw? Lots of people own and wear camo, and lots of those folks own guns. From the story as printed, there's no link to this particular person, who denies being in the woods that day.

s&w 24
March 17, 2005, 03:46 PM
the fact is that If the ATF knows that you bought a stack of guns they will come check on you! In FFL audits they will make note if they see the same name on a bunch of 4473's. Like it or lump it thats the way it has been and will be.

HankB
March 17, 2005, 03:58 PM
Taking the story at face value, I can under stand why the cops went to talk to him. (Do they have registration there, so they knew he'd bought $5000 worth of guns?)

The operative word here is talk to him - there's nothing wrong with their ringing his doorbell and asking if he knew anything about what allegedly happened.

But unless they had evidence that he'd done something criminal, when they wanted to remove his guns, He should have told them, charge me or get lost . . .

When I see stories like this, I'm always left wondering about, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.

Gunsnrovers
March 17, 2005, 04:04 PM
The $5000 part seems like a reporter trying to make a story where they currently don't have one juicy enough. How they police handled the guy certainly makes me wonder. It sounds like he went to the top of the "local guys to talk to" list due to the attention his recent purchases caused.

All that being said, I'm very glad they did react and investigate an armed man in camouflage hanging out near a school playground.

If he's a hunter, he's a moron. If he's just plinking, he's a moron. If it's "just a hobby", he's a moron. Playing sneaky Pete with a rifle near a school ranks pretty high on the "this is really stupid" things to do. So either he's a bad guy or a moron, but he's still worth taking aside and talking to.

ZeroX
March 17, 2005, 04:13 PM
Ugh, Indy Star.

El Tejon
March 17, 2005, 04:17 PM
Hank, no, no registration here.

Made phone call, was told "under investigation." Has to be more than just buying 5K in firearms. :scrutiny:

rem
March 17, 2005, 04:43 PM
"if the headlines were..." - ScottsGT

Umm, yeah, but they weren't.

0007
March 17, 2005, 04:44 PM
He's probably on the phone to Richard Jewel's (former) lawyer discussing the size of the law suit...

cgv69
March 17, 2005, 04:49 PM
I can't even begin to comment on this. It is wrong on so many levels.

+1

I fear we better get use to this kind of thing because it is only going to get worse. :mad:

Justin
March 17, 2005, 05:10 PM
http://www.donsguns.com/images/don.jpg

Comment from local yokel nitwit in 5...4...3...

auschip
March 17, 2005, 05:25 PM
If he's a hunter, he's a moron. If he's just plinking, he's a moron. If it's "just a hobby", he's a moron. Playing sneaky Pete with a rifle near a school ranks pretty high on the "this is really stupid" things to do. So either he's a bad guy or a moron, but he's still worth taking aside and talking to.

Provided he was the guy in camo at the school. Otherwise he is a local guy who buys guns and owns camo. Heck, if buying guns and owning camo was against the law they would have locked me up a long time ago.

Lonestar.45
March 17, 2005, 05:26 PM
I don't think there's anything wrong with "checking the guy out". Meaning, go ask him if he was in the woods, if he owns guns, and ask to see them (to see if they match the descriptions of any that were seen with the "lurker"). Beyond that, no way can/should they be able to do anything else without some sort of proof that this was the guy.

That said, they TOOK HIS GUNS! Made him give them to a relative to keep while they "checked it out"! Are you kidding me!?!?!? That is wrong on so many levels. That means just about any of us on this board can be ordered to give our guns to relatives, clean the guns out of our house, if someone spots someone in your neighborhood with a gun? Wearing (heaven forbide) that evil camoflage? Damn. This is disheartening.

What if there really is a nut out there, the cops have taken away this (presumably) innocent guy's guns away, and the real nut breaks into his house and shoots him or his family? I'd be pretty damn pissed, knowing that there could be a real nut out there close by, and the police just came by and disarmed me.

Not to mention, do you know how many teenagers, heck adults, for that matter, that run around these days with paintball guns and camo? It would be moronic to do it in the woods near a school, but it's not that hard to imagine some teenagers doing that. There are BB guns, heck, waterguns, that look like "assault" weapons these days. To disarm a guy like that without any proof is completely ridiculous.

swjr72
March 17, 2005, 05:43 PM
There are always 2 sides to every story Usually the media get things so skewed or misreported you never get the WHOLE TRUTH. I definitely like to know the conclusion to this story. If the guy did nothing illegal then he should not have to let anyone babysit his guns. If on the other hand he is standing out in the woods with a gun near a school he isnt the brightes bulb in the room to begin with and need checking into

Model520Fan
March 17, 2005, 06:17 PM
None of us know what happened. Even if there were more detail in the "news" report, we still wouldn't know whether it was true.

Suppose it happened to me, and there was no ID on the actual camo-clad idiot who was spotted with a rifle (if there even WAS one), and the cops suggested to me that I leave all my longarms with a relative? If the relative had safe storage and I were still holding on to a handgun or two, I'd jump at the chance. That way, if it happened again before I took my longarms back, the cops would be pretty sure it wasn't me. I don't play with the longarms that often, anyway.

Just another useless guess above. We simply don't know the whole story.

Gunsnrovers
March 17, 2005, 06:34 PM
auschip, you're right and I did a poor job of typing my thoughts. I love internet forums. I do a lousy job of expressing myself on them.:rolleyes:

The moron in the woods need to be looked into, but we don't know who this person is. Talking to the local guys makes sense because it certainly is worthy of investigation. Not many upstanding reasons to be walking around school yards with a rifle.

What they do AFTER they pay you a polite visit is where things go wonky. I would like to believe they have more on this guy then a report from a bunch of school kids to remove his guns, etc. but we don't know much if anything now.

Grey54956
March 17, 2005, 06:38 PM
Most folks I know who own firearms also own camo.

I own firearms, and I also have some camo.

How far is "very close" to a school? Two miles, perhaps three?

If the guy's property is adjacent to the school, I could see how that might be an issue. But, there are too many generalities at play here...

carpettbaggerr
March 17, 2005, 06:44 PM
but they completely over-reacted after that. They may have under-reacted. You can't tell anything from this story, except that there's more to the story.....

Gunsnrovers
March 17, 2005, 06:48 PM
If the kids on the playground actually saw this man, he was NOT 1, 2, or 3 miles away.

PromptCritical
March 17, 2005, 06:59 PM
Cox said the guns appear to have been purchased legally, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is double-checking his purchase records

In other words "He appears to be innocent, we're gonna go see if we can dig up something so we don't look stupid."

Highland Ranger
March 17, 2005, 07:08 PM
Colin Ferguson - Didn't he go through the extensive California background check and waiting period? Remember, this is the incident that brought us the anti. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy

I believe this is the LIRR guy, in which case had Nassau COunty (or Suffolk - NY) had reasonable gun laws allowing concealed carry, this guy would have been stopped before he shot so many people.

Its not the gun .. . . . it's the criminal.

And if they had enough on him they would have charged him.

Spreadfire Arms
March 17, 2005, 07:33 PM
s&w 24 wrote:

"the fact is that If the ATF knows that you bought a stack of guns they will come check on you! In FFL audits they will make note if they see the same name on a bunch of 4473's. Like it or lump it thats the way it has been and will be."

for clarification, FFL's only report transactions regarding the sale of two or more handguns within five business days to the ATF Tracing Center.

so, theoretically, if a person bought one handgun each from two different dealers the same day, neither FFL would know he had purchased a weapon from the other guy within the 5 business days so nobody would forward the information to ATF.

Dealers retain their own 4473's. at the annual inspection they do go over all of the 4473's but again it is difficult to locate a single buyer who uses several different FFL's, especially if he buys at gun shows where he can buy one from one FFL and then another from the FFL at the next table over. one FFL can be located several hundred miles away from the other FFL, so they are inspected by different field offices and thus different inspectors.

unless ATF is looking for a specific person it is just plain difficult to do. if the ATF had to keep every 4473 they would need something about the size of the Pentagon to hold all the yellow sheets from the last 20 years.

the only firearms ATF specifically tracks are those in the NFA Registry.

Sir Aardvark
March 17, 2005, 08:47 PM
I spent a hell of a lot more than $5,000 on guns last year. One purchase alone came close to being about that much.

So....if one of my neighbor freaks out with his guns, then I should turn over my guns to a third party for safekeeping - "just in case"?.

If the cops say "Remember Indianapolis", can we citizens respond with "Remember Ruby Ridge"?.

Gunsnrovers
March 17, 2005, 09:52 PM
If a cop tells you "Remember Indianapolis", you can reply , "What do the Japanese have to do with this?" and escape while he figures that out.

Standing Wolf
March 17, 2005, 10:18 PM
Yeah, but we're not a police state.

If you come to my house with a badge to ask about my firearms, you'd better have a signed, verifiable warrant.

Pilgrim
March 17, 2005, 11:29 PM
Who provided the tip?

Pilgrim

Wildalaska
March 18, 2005, 12:02 AM
Damned if ya do and damned if ya dont, theres a thin line that needs to be walked between purported public safety and peoples alleged rights, sounds like its being nicely walked in this case.

If you come to my house with a badge to ask about my firearms, you'd better have a signed, verifiable warrant.

They dont need a warrant to come to your house and ask ya, just need one to enter :)


WildbuthtenagainimareasonableguyAlaska

dinosaur
March 18, 2005, 07:10 AM
Ever buy one of those raffle tickets at a gun show that have about 30 guns as the grand prize? "Yeah, you'll know my house, it's right next to the school. 2:30 delivery will be fine." Let em chew on that for awhile. :neener:

HighVelocity
March 18, 2005, 08:42 AM
As a kid growing up my Dad would often make reference to "doing something that gets your name on a list". He'd say things like "stay off the tv", "keep your name out of the paper." etc. When I got older I called him on it once and asked him to explain.
His explanation was this;

There is absolutely nothing the media can offer you but headaches and heartaches.

I have followed that advice my whole life.

CentralTexas
March 18, 2005, 09:01 AM
Right, they just checked their list with addresses of gunowners that they don't have.....
CT

hilljack22
March 18, 2005, 01:27 PM
Update...

http://www.indystar.com/articles/9/230020-7909-102.html

Center Grove lifts school restrictions after police probe


By Diana Penner
diana.penner@indystar.com
March 18, 2005


GREENWOOD, Ind. -- Center Grove schoolchildren will be able to go outside for recess again today.

School officials Thursday lifted a lockdown of nine Center Grove schools after law enforcement officials determined there was no threat connected to reports of an unidentified man with a gun in the woods near West Grove Elementary on Tuesday.

"My feeling is, they can't really overreact," said Sam Gorall, whose home is on a cul-de-sac separated from the school by the woods where the man was reportedly seen.

His son is a first-grader at West Grove and was outside with other children Tuesday when one of them saw the man. His son saw the man, too, but not a gun, said Gorall, who also has a 13-year-old stepson at the middle school.

The trick for parents, he said, is conveying concern to children without panicking them.

"We told them the whole thing probably is nothing. It probably wasn't a big deal. There's a possibility he didn't even have a gun," Gorall said. "But if you see somebody like that, go the other way."

All schools in the district were battened down Wednesday and Thursday. West Grove was placed on lockdown starting Tuesday.

Law enforcement officials said a man who lives near the school had recently purchased about $6,000 in firearms, apparently all legally. He was deemed not to be a threat and cooperated with law enforcement by letting the weapons be moved to the home of a relative.

Police did not release his name.

Most residents seemed to support the district's conservative approach.

Around the corner and down the street from Gorall's house, three mothers discussed the episode as their younger children cavorted outside on play equipment in their back yards.

"You've got to check it out, in this day and age," said Kerri Edwards, who has a 4-year-old.

Wakefield subdivision neighbors Christina Harper, who has a stepson at the middle school and a second at Center Grove High School, and Kristi Leiter, with a second-grader and a younger child not yet in school, also supported the cautious approach.

Law enforcement officials checked out the man who made the recent gun purchases after receiving a tip. They went to his home to interview him, said Johnson County Sheriff's Col. Doug Cox. The man lives near the school and owns camouflage clothing but denied being in the woods, Cox said.

Cox said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is double-checking the man's purchase records.

He said police were mindful of the fatal shooting of an Indianapolis police officer in August by a mentally unstable man who had legally bought several assault-style weapons.

"Even if he wasn't at the school, we want to take a close look at him," Cox said

The man, a gun enthusiast, surrendered several guns to his sister for safekeeping and has cooperated with sheriff's investigators, said Maj. Steve Byerly.

"He understands community concerns raised by his recent gun purchases."

Parents picking up their children about 11:30 a.m. Thursday at West Grove Elementary said they were not afraid for their children's safety but supported the lockdown.

"I'm pleased," said Laura Johnson, 35, as she picked up daughter Skylar, 5, in front of the school. "It shows they care about our children."

Star reporters Paul Bird, Bill Booher, Jon Murray and John Tuohy contributed to this story.


Its for the children...

one-shot-one
March 18, 2005, 01:47 PM
Highland Ranger ,congrats on you buying power, but please do not call those of us who must scrimp and save even for the $500-750 purchase trolls, we are not trolls just poor. :neener:

Old Fuff
March 18, 2005, 02:12 PM
Of course. This "person of interest" did nothing illegal, and apparently the "man in the woods with a rifle" was over-blown. He did of course spend a lot of money by some standards on firearms, and apparently had a massive collection consisting of "several" guns. So even though they say,

>> He was deemed not to be a threat and cooperated with law enforcement by letting the weapons be moved to the home of a relative. <<

They continue to insist that:

>> The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is double-checking the man's purchase records. "Even if he wasn't at the school, we want to take a close look at him," Cox said. <<

Why? Because:

>> He said police were mindful of the fatal shooting of an Indianapolis police officer in August by a mentally unstable man who had legally bought several assault-style weapons. <<

So I conclude that any gun owners' rights to due process and Constitutional safeguards can be ignored if the sheeple are worried and a "mentally unstable" person somewhere (anywhere) bought several assault-style weapons and shot a police officer, even though there is no connection between the two incidents.

Tis' time to really think about this ... :scrutiny:

Vernal45
March 18, 2005, 02:14 PM
I wonder how it would have played out if the man, who had done nothing wrong, told the Police to pound sand.


The only thing worse than: ITS FOR THE CHILDREN is ITS FOR OFFICER SAFETY. :cuss: :banghead:

Hkmp5sd
March 18, 2005, 04:37 PM
I'd *love* to know how many other guns the guy has in his house after letting his "new" weapons be moved to his sisters house. :neener:


"They made me store my new custom AR-15 and Remington 700 at my sister's house, but left the other 125 firearms in my collection sitting in my living room," Ms. Tamara, a local gun enthusiast told this reporter. While leaving an arsenal in Ms. Tamara's house, which happens to be within 300 miles of an elementary school, Chief Barbara Boxer said they did take custody of all camoflage clothing found in the house. "It seems as though all of Ms. Tamara's guns are currently legal to own and there is nothing we can do about them at the moment. So we took the next best action and separated the camoflage clothing from the arsenal," Chief Boxer explained.

Vernal45
March 18, 2005, 05:51 PM
SO, you can own guns, or camo clothes, just not both.......Thats liberal logic for ya.

S Roper
March 18, 2005, 06:27 PM
Well if you had camo and one of those assault-style flash suppressors you'd be dang near invisible.

artherd
March 18, 2005, 06:28 PM
Nine Center Grove schools continued a lockdown today as the Johnson County sheriff's department and federal agents investigated a man who recently purchased $5,000 in firearms.

Dang, I've doubled that in 1 day!

http://dreamwithyoureyeswideopen.com/7400/M82A1-Ben3.jpg

unless ATF is looking for a specific person it is just plain difficult to do. if the ATF had to keep every 4473 they would need something about the size of the Pentagon to hold all the yellow sheets from the last 20 years.

Every FFL is required to keep every 4473 filled out INDEFINATELY. If they go out of buisness, they are to be surrendered to the ATF entirely, and ARE entered into a database. They've got your pentagon sized room.

Firethorn
March 18, 2005, 07:43 PM
Let's see.
2xBarrett 468 (http://www.barrettrifles.com/rifles/rifles_m468.htm) would fullfill the requirements for this story.

5k could be anything from 50 SKS's to one .50BMG. The guy probably got his refund or found a good deal for a few rifles, and went for it.

And like the second report said, it was reported by kids, the guy in the woods might not even of had a gun.

Heck, they came to my house, they'd find 2 military arms, a sniper rifle, and 6k rounds of ammo.

Highland Ranger
March 19, 2005, 06:56 PM
Highland Ranger ,congrats on you buying power, but please do not call those of us who must scrimp and save even for the $500-750 purchase trolls, we are not trolls just poor.

Not why I called him a troll, read my post again.

To summarize, the original poster implied this guy was a nutcase who slipped through the system BECAUSE of his purchases: no one buys $5000 worth of guns at a time.

So if you can afford $5000 worth of guns you're a nutcase.

Wrong.

The trolling part comes in when someone posts, on a very pro 2a, pro-constitution board that the police were nice guys for not taking his guns and allowing him to give them to his sister.

Like I said, read it again.

And poor is not being able to afford anything . . . . see "africa" on the internet.

Hawkmoon
March 19, 2005, 07:16 PM
Who on here does NOT own some camoflage clothing? Raise your hands.

I guess I should expect the BATFE to knock on the door any minute now. I purchased a gun this afternoon. Granted, it wasn't $5,000 worth of a gun ... but I was wearing a camoflage field jacket!

Honest, Agent Schmuckatelli, I didn't know I couldn't touch guns while wearing camo clothing. I'm innercent, I tell ya!

spacemanspiff
March 19, 2005, 10:23 PM
i dont.

it makes my butt look big.

Wildalaska
March 19, 2005, 11:32 PM
Everyhting makes your butt look big...especially that frilly number you had on today

Besides you hang around the schools wearing a raincoat anyway :) :neener:

WildaskhimaboutthestringsuspendersAlaska

EZ CZ75
March 20, 2005, 12:15 AM
Lets face it. Even though there are a lot of people that own guns in this great land of ours, a lot of them are democratic fence sitters. Big stories about guns push them over the fence all the time. I know some. This fella that was questioned and investigated acted in a way that disarmed the media. Imagine what would have happened had he told the PD to take a flying leap at the moon. The media then would have had all the "AMMO" needed to take this to the next level. "Wack Job refuses to cooperate with PD". This equals "He must be guilty" in a lot of minds.

We also don't know if the PD or He suggested to move the guns. The article says "surrendered", but we all know that the media loves trigger words. Hell, that is what makes books worth reading and news entertaining.

Yes, it seems a law suit could be filed. IMNSHO, this man did right. He diffused the situation and got the media and PD off his ass that much more quickly.

Akusp
March 20, 2005, 02:14 AM
Thanks Spiff... I spewed coke on my keyboard.

Dorian
March 20, 2005, 03:55 AM
Constitution? What's that?

38SnubFan
March 20, 2005, 04:37 AM
This guy wasn't just checked because he bought some guns. I'm willing to bet there is something else behind any suspicion that is floating around him. I agree totally. I don't see any responsible police officer/investigator going to that level just on reasonable suspcion. It's my belief that there was something there, something that wasn't mentioned in the article that we know NOTHING about, to cause law enforcement to have probable cause to take the actions that they did. This, even in the most liberal, socialistic, over-administrative departments.

Since we can't prove it, and can't charge you we'll ask that a realtive drive your car till you can prove you didn't do it. I'm sorry, but these are lethal weapons we're speaking about here, not cars. (That's NOT saying a motor vehicle cannot be used as a lethal weapon, so let's not start that rant either.) I don't find that to be a necessarily valid analogy.

They dont need a warrant to come to your house and ask ya, just need one to enter Even though most will go to the trouble of obtaining a warrant VERY QUICKLY, if a law enforcement official has enough probable cause, he can do it without a warrant. And as long as you're willing to allow the officer into your home, you just cancelled his need for a warrant; meaning you have waived your right to request a warrant by allowing him access to your residence. And from what I've read, yeah, he cooperated by allowing relatives to keep his firearms until the matter was clear. Even though he didn't need to do it (and he would have been well within his legal rights to refuse), he agreed to comply in order to assist police in clearing their investigation smoothly and quickly. That's a noble individual in my opinion, and I wish there were more people like him. I'm starting to greatly dislike the growing majority of people in these forums who tend to believe that law enforcement is consistently working against them. You pay them, they work for you. That's how law enforcement/public service employees operate (in most cases).

Who on here does NOT own some camoflage clothing? Raise your hands. I'm raising my hand quite highly here. It would make me look like more of a redneck than I already am. Not to say that I wouldn't invest in some if I started hunting again.

-38SnubFan

Johnnybgood
March 20, 2005, 11:09 AM
that they can enter your abode without a warrant? Wheres the constitutional rights I keep hearing and seeing so little of? IF they could prove he had done something wrong, great. But we are talking kids here who have great imagination. Any more I think I would let them stand on my porch while I call my lawyer and if he advised to let them search with him present MAYBE.

bogie
March 20, 2005, 11:51 AM
Campers, hint #1...

If you live next door to a school, don't do your super ubertactical maneuver practice while school is in session.

His camo/techniques must not have been too good...

Highland Ranger
March 20, 2005, 10:22 PM
I'm sorry, but these are lethal weapons we're speaking about here, not cars.

Cars far more lethal than guns . . . . not a rant, just the truth. Both objects, both dangerous - the analogy holds.

I don't see any responsible police officer/investigator going to that level just on reasonable suspcion.

Well there's the rub: "responsible". What if they're not?

Most cops are ok, don't want to start the cop bashing. But some are uber-citizens and the thing they like least are plain old citizens like us with guns.

Bottom line: if they had something on this guy they should have charged him. Period.

It's when I read threads like this that I really fear for the future of the country.

S Roper
March 21, 2005, 10:39 PM
"Who on here does NOT own some camoflage clothing? Raise your hands."

I don't. Never had the need for it.

Brian Dale
March 22, 2005, 02:42 AM
Who on here does NOT own some camouflage clothing? Raise your hands.I don't. My Mom has a camo baseball cap that she got at the fair, though. :D

Spiffy'n'Wild, I thought that what made, uh, one's :evil: butt look big was, ummmm, uh, ...

fat?

:neener:


I won't be living next to any schools. Ever.

Leatherneck
March 22, 2005, 10:35 AM
I'm starting to greatly dislike the growing majority of people in these forums who tend to believe that law enforcement is consistently working against them. Not "consistently," but often enough to offend.
You pay them, they work for you. That's how law enforcement/public service employees operate (in most cases). Dream on, friend. Most LEOs right here on this forum have clearly and succinctly stated this is not so.

TC
TFL Survivor

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun owner checked in school lockdown" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!