"arsenal" discovered/confiscated in New Jersey

[Tirod]

People bash cops because they have no clue what they can and can't do. As you know, often enough, cops play neighborhood babysitter to neighbors who should be adult enough to get along. When they don't satisfy one or the other, why, the cop is at fault.

Cops get attitudes about some folks when it becomes a repeat performance. I'm just recommending that when face time is required, make the best of it. Getting in an LEO's face is a bad way to enlist his help later when you might need it.

 

[Officers'Wife]

I'm just recommending that when face time is required, make the best of it. Getting in an LEO's face is a bad way to enlist his help later when you might need it.

When an alleged public servant takes the attitude s/he needs to be stroked to perform his/her job with a modicum of professionalism that public servant needs to find an occupation outside the public sector as a benefit to the peace and dignity of society. In short, if they use excuses not to do their jobs they need to be sacked. That 'something to hide' is simply an excuse to end run around respecting the bill of rights.

However, this is getting far off topic so you get the last word. Please have the respect not to make it another excuse. TYIA

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

However, this is getting far off topic so you get the last word.

lol

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Tirod: "Mistakes we all happen to make:

1) Leaving firearms in plain sight - unloaded or not. If you really need that gun for home defense, it still needs to be out of sight to neighbors and the occasional detective pursuing leads.

2) Associating with known criminals. It's sometimes hard to judge - but trailer loads of property being stored in a rural location means something. Tell your newfound buddies no.

3) Don't be a stranger to your PD. Reclusiveness just creates speculation. If the local deputy/LEO gets a call from you for thefts of property or suspicious activity, you might be a good guy. Them never hearing from you, well, what are you trying to hide? Don't be a pest, but do use the system to your own advantage, too.
...
This is an Epic Failure in low profile. Don't let the voices tell you otherwise."

Excellent post, Tirod. I agree: Low Profile Fail.

I associate with known criminals all the time, but I make sure everyone knows I'm a defense attorney and not a racketeer. The majority of local cops know me from court, from gun shops, pawn shops and shows, and from the street. General consensus seems to be "Pretty good guy; a colorful character, but harmless." That works. Being a heavily-armed Howard Hughes does not.

It's sometimes hard to keep firearms out of plain sight, if you're talking about inexpensive display items. That doesn't mean you leave them visible through a window or in a living area immediately accessed by visitors.

 

[snowtigger]

All this talk of explosions. Has anyone noticed how they disposed of all this powder? THEY BURNED IT!!
Smokeless powder is not an explosive. In the cited 1981 case where the house "vaporized", they found C4, an explosive, unburned. God only knows what DID explode.
The ammo, if burned, would cause many firecracker-like"pops" as the primers ignited.
The whining reporter is just another example of an ignorant "journalist" trying to sell papers in the world of the dying media.
The sniveling neighbor is another example of total ignorance. The NJ cops must not be as ignorant, they knew how to safely dispose of unwanted powder.
Even ammo stored in military ammo cans is not contained well enough to explode. The cans are designed to fail before that happens.
I am not saying the guy was not some kind of criminal, but his storage of ammo and smokeless powder did not create any kind of danger to his community, other than attracting theives.

 

[no.5enfield]

I think that if this guy was sitting on that much ammunition, he may have been a victim of paranoia. Therefore when a couple of suits(or uniforms) show up asking him questions he may have felt his greatest fears were realized and panicked. Of course that is just speculation and we will have to see what the final report is. But I don't feel like that is an excessive amount of ammunition, if I could afford it I would have as much as I could fit in my shop. What surprises me is that so many posters here are shocked that he had so much, because it seems like every other thread in this forum is about how the Big O is going to raise ammo taxes or ban military calibers, etc....

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi snowtigger,

Has anyone noticed how they disposed of all this powder? THEY BURNED IT!!
Smokeless powder is not an explosive.

*sigh* Smokeless powder IS a high explosive. As such it can be disposed of by burning without detonation. Pistol powder IIRC is 7 part nitrocellulose and 3 parts nitroglycerin, this makes it a de facto 30 percent dynamite. However if lit with a match it will merrily burn at a rate of appox 45 seconds a foot. However, insert a #5 blasting cap with a tetryl booster and you can blast tree stumps very nicely, thank you.

 

[snowtigger]

You can sigh all you want, smokeless powder is not an explosive. Unless you contain it within a vessel, it will only burn. I don't care how many blasting caps you set off.
Dynamite IS an explosive, it can be detonated in the open air.

 

[snowtigger]

There are many things that, combined with other things, can be made into explosives. Ammonium nitrate fertilizer, combined with diesel fuel or nitromethane makes a great explosive, but in it's normal state, it is only fertilizer.

 

[Officers'Wife]

If you say so Snowtigger, my Uncle always told me of how he used to light C4 with a match and use it to heat his C-rations. I guess C4 is not an explosive either. In fact, by your definition the only explosive would be nitrostarch and nitrogen iodide.

BTW- ANFO has too slow of detonation rate and has very little brisance. About all it's good for is mining operations where a lot of 'pushing' is required. Despite what Gannet Corp told you about Tim McVey.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

i have a few holes in my yard where we used black powder to blst em into pieces

 

[Officers'Wife]

i have a few holes in my yard where we used black powder to blst em into pieces

Yet if you compress BP around a spindle it will propel a paper tube to great heights. BP is a 'low explosive' while it doesn't really explode the mixture can be used to create high enough pressures to 'push' or propel other objects such as dirt. Thus the term propellant.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

my irish republican grandfather was good at making loud noises he taught me some things that were truly reckless. but a ton of fun

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

you're not old enough to remember the story in readers digest. rich new yorker bought a farm in rural conn. he had the new tractor all the bells and whistles and a brand new truck club cab 4 wheel drive every possible option and luxury. he was out in the field blasting a few stumps. his very first time. old timer stopped to watch . the guy was a true type a and he loaded a particularly big stump with a VERY enthusiastic charge. no working his way up to the big ones for him. how hard could it be? he lit the fuse and both he and the old timer retired to a safe distance. KER-BLAMM! stump goes spinning through the air in a graceful arc and crushes the cab of his brand new truck. hes open mouthed in dismay the old timer spits a lil chaw juice and says real softly "don't worry son a lil practice and you'll get em to land in the back every time."


don't know if the story was true but i was a poster child for that kinda mistake. one of the best times i had as a teen was blowing up beaver dams in upstate new york. some moron let me have 200 sticks of dynamite. i learned that i could never run too far or too fast. since then i learned to use the minimum that will do the job i just split the stumps up so i can scoop the pieces up with a tractor. not loud at all

 

[Officers'Wife]

Once more drifting off-topic. You get the last word on this one.

 

[RedAlert]

I have a couple of questions all on the premise that there is no arrest or search warrant in hand.

1. If a police officer walks up to your front door and asks you to come down to the station for questioning, Do you have to go? Can you not tell them NO, if you want me to come down to the police station, bring an arrest warrant?

2. If a police officer is standing on your front porch, you turn your back to go retrieve a jacket, what gives the officer the right to enter the home without invitation?

3. Does this mean, that anytime a police officer walks up to your front door, you deny him entry, he can still enter, observe the contents of your home and then take this information back to the station for evidence to prove the basis of a search warrant?

4. Doesn't the Constitution provide protection against unlawful Search and Seizure?

One member here mentioned about the expanding zone of safety for the officers. Is this kind of a Trump Card in the game of Home Sovereignty vs. Police Authority? The expanding zone of safety all of a sudden expands from your porch to the kitchen?

Can someone help by clarifying the situations I've mentioned? As I mentioned in my opening statement, these questions are based on no warrant in hand.

Ralph

 

[snowtigger]

I was using explosives before Timothy McVeigh was born. ANFO is and has been used in road construction for many years. If I wanted to blow a building down, I would not hesitate to use it.
C4 will burn, as will TNT, dynamite and a whole bunch of other explosives, but you apply a shock to them (ie, a blasting cap) they will explode in midair. Do the same thing to smokeless powder and all you do is spread fertilizer around.

 

[TRGRHPY]

1. If a police officer walks up to your front door and asks you to come down to the station for questioning, Do you have to go? Can you not tell them NO, if you want me to come down to the police station, bring an arrest warrant?

2. If a police officer is standing on your front porch, you turn your back to go retrieve a jacket, what gives the officer the right to enter the home without invitation?

3. Does this mean, that anytime a police officer walks up to your front door, you deny him entry, he can still enter, observe the contents of your home and then take this information back to the station for evidence to prove the basis of a search warrant?

4. Doesn't the Constitution provide protection against unlawful Search and Seizure?

One member here mentioned about the expanding zone of safety for the officers. Is this kind of a Trump Card in the game of Home Sovereignty vs. Police Authority? The expanding zone of safety all of a sudden expands from your porch to the kitchen?

1. Yes, you can tell them no. If you voluntarily go, you can leave any time unless they arrest you.

2. In this case the reason was that the suspect ran inside (according to the article/ quote).

3. "Anytime" an officer doesn't have a warrant and wants to come in and you tell him no, he'd better have PC.

4. No it doesn't. The 4th Amendment states "...unreasonable searchs and seizures..."

The expanded safety zone: an officer can check something in plain view within reach of the suspect. If the suspect walks around the house while being interviewed, it just allows more places for the officer to look since "within reach" is moving with the suspect while he/she is walking through the residence.

No it's not a trump card, it is just a way for the officer to stay safe. Same reason why they can frisk (terry). If the person is just sitting on the couch, the officer can't start walking around the house looking into bedrooms.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi TRGRHPY

4. Doesn't the Constitution provide protection against unlawful Search and Seizure?

4. No it doesn't. The 4th Amendment states "...unreasonable searchs and seizures..."

Are you implying an unlawful search is not unreasonable?

 

[Tamlin]

RDF: TRGHPY is right. There has been lots of discussion on whether this guy was or was not doing anything illegal. However, NOTHING from the posted reports gave the police any reason for entering this guy's home. If he slammed the door on them, they COULD NOT enter his house without either 1) a warrant or 2) probable cause supported by exigent circumstances. If he's in the house and can't go anywhere, there ARE NO exigent circumstances. It's not like he was suspected of dealing drugs and could flush them down the toilet. The cops should have called for a warrant as soon as he slammed the door. They didn't, and his lawyer will tear them a new one for it. Cops can come to your door every day of the week and ask to speak with you, and every day of the week you can slam the door in their face.

 

[TRGRHPY]

Are you implying an unlawful search is not unreasonable?

The implication is that the BOR says one and not the other. Misquoting the Constitution happens rather frequently and can make a difference in the meaning or interpretation. Example: How the Second Amendment gets butchered. Hell, they argue over what the commas mean or don't mean. People flat out assert rights on a regular basis that don't even exist. If someone wants to make a point about rights, it probably would help their credibility to know what they are. Unlawful and unreasonable don't mean the same thing.

I just noticed that the part of that answer didn't show up in the post for some reason (prob made a copy/paste error or something else stupid)

"Yes, the 4th Amendment provides guidlines for search and seizure."

Oops, sorry.

And for clarification, there is not a term used called an expanding zone...it was just what I used to describe the situation. If you ask an officer, they wouldn't know what you were talking about. Call it "Sean-speak" if you will.

 

[moooose102]

well, unfortutunatly, even if the guy beats the rap, AND all of the guns were his, he will never get the ammo, or reloading components back, nor will he be reimbursed for the powder they burnt, and it will take years to get his guns back, if ever. and, if he is convicted, all of that will be crushed and melted for scrap. isn't our government wonderful!?

 

[Officers'Wife]

The implication is that the BOR says one and not the other.

Non sequitur, since the BoR represents the law of the land and the BoR provides protection against unreasonable searches said search by definition would be illegal. The real problem comes with finding a reasonable person to decide if the search in question was reasonable.

 

[expvideo]

There is nothing wrong with having a large collection of firearms and a lot of ammo for them. There is nothing wrong with having a bunker or gunpowder either. For that, he did nothing wrong. But he had a hand grenade, which would be illegal, and would make me assume that some of his guns were also illegal. I don't think any gun should be illegal, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them are. And this guy was involved in a theft ring, so he has no pity from me. It sounds to me like this was a good bust. The guy was a criminal, and he deserves what he got. Now we have little evidence from the story, but what it does say was that he was being investigated for his involvement in a theft ring and that the detectives had to wrestle a gun away from him. The article doesn't really paint this guy as a good person.

I'm not going to support this guy. You can have a large hord of weapons and ammo and that is fine by me. But criminal activity is criminal activity.

Let's take SBRs (short barrelled rifles) for example. I would love to own an SBR. But they are illegal in my state. So dispite my love for SBRs and my disapproval of a law banning them, I still don't own one because they are illegal. I may support this guy owning a hand grenade, but if he's doing so illegally, I can't feel sorry for him when he gets caught.

That being said, his hand grenade may have been inert and the news just wants to make the story sound more sensational than it really is. That wouldn't surprise me at all.

If they guy is a firearms collector and he got busted for something that isn't illegal, then my heart goes out to him. I also have a collection of firearms. But that sounds like it simply is not the case. It sounds like this guy was a criminal and he got busted. He'll get no sympathy from me.

 

[Officers'Wife]

Hi expvideo

But he had a hand grenade,

The papers said he had a hand grenade, not a word if it were a 'live' grenade. Had it been functional the report of it's destruction was noticeably absent in the news report.

And this guy was involved in a theft ring,

His 'involvement' in the ring was never discussed other than 'work product' of the LEO department. Until that information is released statements of 'involvement' are at best premature. So far all that is known for certain sure is that private property was seized and destroyed by a government agency. At the moment it's not known whether the seizure was justified by law.

A person far wiser than I once told me there where three sides to every crime; what is said in court, what is said in the news and the truth.

Selena