Persecuted for being a gun owner

[JohnBT]

Police reports are public, right? How are they going to cover it up when the crime beat reporter comes calling?

And speaking of health hazards in residentail areas...

I had a neighbor two doors down who was a hoarder, among other things like being overly suspicious and not paying her utility bills even though (it turns out) she was rich.

She was burning tax papers in a little metal trash can when she set the 2nd floor bedroom on fire. The fire captain knew my next door neighbor and told her that the newspapers and magazines were piled to the ceiling with little wandering paths through each room. They found a bunch of dead cat skeletons, too.

A judge appointed a legal guardian after an evaluation or three.

Our inner city houses are each 3 feet apart. Fire = bad. Bug infestation = bad.

John

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I too can see taking them for safe keeping so that the burglers don't come back with a van of their own, but when/if the owner gets them back, all the local thugs will be backing vans up to the man's house to build up their arsenals. All they have to do is watch the news, drive up and down Auburn Street and locate the same house as was on the TV.

Two things could've been done differently here: 1)Police don't call the media on this case. 2)The police take care of the property DISCRETELY!!!!!!

If the police were really concerned about the safety of others they would've kept this quiet.

The Police did the right thing in the wrong way.

 

[armoredman]

I am curious about followup - has the homeowner been contacted yet? Have the police agreed to give him back his firearms when he comes for them, or will they charge him storage fees, etc., or are there some sort of charges pending?

 

[coloradokevin]

Police departments have different procedures in different parts of the country, but it is not uncommon for the police to temporarily secure property for a person who isn't present at the time that it is recovered.

By way of example, my department will board-up a house that was burglarized, just to secure it, even in the absence of a homeowner. If we recover a stolen car, valuable property inside of the vehicle will be collected and placed into our property bureau (not as evidence, but as "personal property"). In these cases a property owner can easily retrieve the missing property simply by showing up at the police station with their ID.

In the context of this burglary, I can't really comment on how reasonable it was for the police to remove the guns from the house. If the home was not very secure, and the firearms appeared to be obvious targets for theft in the immediate future, then it might have been very reasonable for the police to secure the firearms until the homeowner returned.

Either way, at this point I don't see evidence to indicate that this was an egregious violation of the owner's rights, given that the police department was probably just acting in good faith to secure his valuable personal property while he was away!

 

[Hatterasguy]

Looking at it another way. The citizens taxes just paid to secure his guns, something he should have done on his own.

 

[Joe Demko]

I don't see anything remotely resembling persecution here. You know what I do see? A writer claiming to be on my side trying to play me. I deeply dislike when anybody tries to play me.

 

[oldbear]

Joe Demko +1 sir.

 

[gunnutery]

Police reports are public, right? How are they going to cover it up when the crime beat reporter comes calling?

Police reports are public, but in no way did I say "cover it up." I said keep it quiet and discrete. Two very different things. If the reporters are beating down the door for a story, give them one...discretely. They could've given the basic details of the story without giving an address, street name or pictures of the house in question. If they wanted pics to go with the story they could've said meet us at the station at (such and such) time and you can take all the pics you want of the loaded van.

 

[gopguy]

We have an update on Mr. Barber, the owner of the large collection confiscated by police after his home was broken into. We now understand a 40mm grenade was found in his collection and Mr. Barber has been arrested.

http://www.wifr.com/news/headlines/101423969.html

However I note this comment in the story. "During their search two weeks ago, Rockford detectives discovered a military grenade round in Barber's home. The(y)sic did so while removing guns from the property due to calls about a burglary."

If the story is correct, the police were not rounding up the guns because the grenade was found, but that they were collecting the firearms up and in the process the grenade was found. I still find that mindset of gathering up the guns to investigate them very troubling as it appears initially it had nothing to do with the grenade. "

 

[JohnBT]

Thank you for the update.

Let's see them hush that up. BOOM.

Troubling is not the same as unlawful or immoral. The house was condemned, the owner was nowhere to be seen and somebody had to be in charge. Or like someone said, they could have just walked away and left the door propped shut.


"Police reports are public, but in no way did I say "cover it up." I said keep it quiet and discrete. Two very different things."

Cover up and keep it quiet are different? If the news is suppressed by the authorities it's all the same to me no matter what you want to call it.

I know, I know, the cops are bad people, right?

 

[JohnBT]

So where's the PERSECUTION for being a gun owner? Anybody found it yet? He wasn't arrested for being a gun owner. Maybe the judge will throw the arrest out and give him his grenade back. You think?

 

[gopguy]

"So where's the PERSECUTION for being a gun owner."

Very simple, when the story first came out the police collected up his guns and said they would investigate the serial numbers. At this point he was assumed to be a victim not a criminal. Turn this around and make the collection toy trains, coins, old radios, motorcycles or what ever and tell me taking it in to custody to investigate it sounds extreme would it not? Besides did they have a warrant to do so?

He was assumed guilty by the press when they said he had not yet been "charged", as though gun ownership was an automatic you should be arrested sort of scenario. This was at least ten days before the grenade allegation came forth. That my friend is where the word persecution comes in. Ponder it.

 

[stchman]

While people make compelling stories about gun rights and not being persecuted for being a gun owner, there is a point to this story.

A large % of illegal firearms found on streets are from people breaking into cars, homes, etc. and stealing the guns. Those guns are then sold to dealers, murderers, gang members, etc. Contrary to what the antis say illegal guns on the street are not bought at Cabela's and Bass Pro.

I truly believe we as honest gun owning citizens have a responsibility to lock our firearms up. If you want to own 300+ firearms, fine, just make sure they are secured properly.

With over 300 guns, the guy can obviously afford guns, but no gun safe???!!!!

My personal safe is starting to fill up. I will need to get a bigger one soon.

 

[Joe Demko]

If the burglars returned to steal toy trains, those trains do not become a threat to public safety. Well, if you were really, really small and the toy train was of a large enough gauge, the malefactors might possibly tie you to the tracks...but I think we can agree that is an unlikely set of circumstances.
So the police report to the scene, find a house crammed with garbage, loose guns scattered about, and an absent owner. It would seem apparent, from the garbage and whatnot, that said absent owner quite likely has mental issues. Doesn't seem like a bad idea at all, to me, to gather up and secure the guns before the burglars come back. Running the serial numbers? If the guns are his, so what? He doesn't have to pay for the numbers checks. If the guns are his, they are his and he'll get them back. If they aren't his, then they belong to somebody who would probably like very much to have them back.
Recent updates on this case indicate Garbage Guy apparently had an illegal grenade in his possession. You really, really need to be careful before annointing somebody as your poster child.

 

[gopguy]

I truly believe we as honest gun owning citizens have a responsibility to lock our firearms up. If you want to own 300+ firearms, fine, just make sure they are secured properly.

Uhm what's a locked house?

Doesn't seem like a bad idea at all, to me, to gather up and secure the guns before the burglars come back. Running the serial numbers? If the guns are his, so what?

A little thing called the 4th amendment to the US Constitution...
"
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

They secured his property without permission and they had no warrant to research his numbers. The grenade was found in what was essentially an illegal search.

 

[Joe Demko]

Okay, now that you've railed about the police a bit, why don't you tell us how you think it should have been handled?

 

[merlinfire]

As long as he has no problem getting his stuff back when he asks for it, I do not see a problem. The police might have done him a favor, preventing some of the guns from getting stolen.

 

[Sam1911]

As long as he has no problem getting his stuff back when he asks for it, I do not see a problem.

Wel... that may be a problem, as he's now facing federal felony charges of possessing an unregistered Title II destructive device. If convicted -- after he serves 10 years and/or pays his (up to) $250,000 fine -- he won't be allowed to own firearms any more.

 

[boostedxt]

if my house were broken into while My wife and I were on vacation I would want the police to take my guns and lock them up at the station till I returned and could retrieve them. what i wouldn't want is my personal life being put in print for all to see. This mans life is now changed for ever in that town because of this. All they had to say was..."firearms removed from the house for safe keeping till the resident returns." The amount or the type have nothing to do with anything.

joe

 

[JohnBT]

"Besides did they have a warrant to do so?"

Even if they didn't have one, why do you think they needed one? Not everything requires a warrant.

Reminds me a situation a few years ago in Richmond. Neighbors called the police because they couldn't get an elderly woman to answer her phone or come to the door and she never went out. A street cop kicked the front door in and started first aid before the rescue squad arrived. She survived.

Yeah, he violated some law, but not the law of common sense.

John

 

[whalerman]

The folks who are posting that the police should have handled this more discretely are exactly right. They have a responsibility to the law abiding citizen who owns the guns as well. But we can all see what is going on here. The police administrators, otherwise known as social workers, could'nt wait to call the media and mention the number of guns involved. The burglary of a citizen became a lost issue. Imagine if that were a police official who was out of town and had his home broken into. Do you think the first call the police would have made would have been to the local TV station? I tend to doubt it. They would have quietly secured the residence and reported a foiled burglary to the local busybodies. Neighbors would not have been consulted.

 

[stchman]

To gopguy:

No, a locked house is in no way secure. A thief can get into pretty much any house as fast as you can with your key.

My home is 100X(conservative estimate) easier to break into than my gun safe. You cannot chuck a rock at my gun safe and open it. A thief can break into your house in under 15 seconds while the same thief will take a far longer time to open a gun safe.