Cops seize Army vet's weapons arsenal

[siglite]

Good point.

 

[Jeffreii]

Just speculation, I will admit, but something tells me that guy really was "up to something" and it was "job well done" for NYPD. There also does seem to be some spinning going on too, at least with vocab. Arsenal and 50-cal rifle stand out. They seem to be using whatever they can come up with to make the guy look as bad as they can. I do not care for that. That is a 'collection' and the rifle is probably a muzzleloader not a browning. And they probably knew that, but wanted to spin the article. There were also several bricks of 22LR ammo too.

Anyhow, he was a felon, so he blew it by doing all that stuff, and in NYC of all places. As our law states, felons do not get guns. Perhaps it could use a different classification to determine gun ownership eligibility other than 'felon' but until then that's the law.

I am for disarming "bad guys" (for lack of a better word) AND arming the good guys (with anything they want. If they are 'good' what's the difference?) Our system uses 'felon' for determining 'bad guy' and that makes this guy not allowed to have them. And something tells me, like i stated before, that this happened for the best. As much as I am for citizens having guns, i am equally interested in, as currently classified, 'felons,' not have them.

 

[kludge]

The more people that understand that the law is wrong the better chance we have of changing it; instead we have a group of "pro-gun" people that says he should go to jail because he had an "illegal" gun.

And herein lies the big problem . . . The intentional mispreading of information because people choose to only see/read/believe what they want to rather than what the facts are.

Fact IS, Andy, this guy is not going to jail for an illegal gun. He is going to jail for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

In fact, he is in illegal possession many times over.

And as I said before, we as law-abiding gun owners shout from the rooftops that we don't need anymore new gun laws--just enforce the ones we have.

Yet when that happens, as in the case we're discussing, all the misinformation and pure BS comes out.

Makes us, collectively, look real smart in front of the rest of the nation . . .

Thanks for that.

Jeff

Jeff, I have been misunderstood. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear. I was specifically responding to the "scary AR-15" comments and the "NYC bans", not whether or not a felon should be in possession of firearms.

It always seems that precedent gets set when we are prosecuting bad guys - in an effort to pile more time on his sentence.

But if I, an otherwise law abiding citizen, who never drinks or uses drugs, with hangun licence, and background checks, and not so much as a class D misdemeanor on my record, were found to have an "illegal" machine gun, there would be >100 guys from this forum on the bandwagon wanting me to serve my 10 years in federal prison.

My opinion on felons in posession of firearms is that most shouldn't have them. And I would vote to convict them of felon-in-possession if I were on the jury, perhaps depending on what their record was.

 

[K3]

Our system uses 'felon' for determining 'bad guy'

Doesn't it also use any crime with jail sentence of more than a year, which would include many misdemeanors? Thought I saw something along those lines somewhere.

To those who believe that barring released cons from owning firearms, I submit that you need to rethink your position. Do you believe the list of prohibited persons will be increased or decreased? Will the types of crimes barring ownership increase in number or decrease? Which way do you think government will trend?

Hint: Governments have historically been more likely to curtail liberty and freedom rather than expand it. Even ours.

 

[XDKingslayer]

These NYC cops would have a coronary if they opened my closet...

 

[K3]

These NYC cops would have a coronary if they opened my closet...

AP Wire:

XDKingslayer had an array of high powered weaponry sufficient to equip a small army. Also confiscated was a huge stockpile of ammunition, estimated to number 80,000 rounds.

Deputy Fife, a recent transfer to the NYPD from a small town in North Carolina, said 'There is no reason for a civilian to have that much ammo or that many wepaons. What need does John Q. Public have for all of that? I keep all the ammo I need in my shirt pocket (pulls out 1 cartridge).'

 

[jakemccoy]

jaholder wrote:

It takes stupidity to do it in the first place and stupidity to get caught.

It takes a criminal act bad enough to be labeled a felony by law and/or repeated disregard for smaller crimes until the charges become a felony.

It also takes either someone admitting they committed a felony or a jury of 12 deciding unanimously that you are one.

Tax Evasion and burglary/ breaking and entering have been felonies for a long, long time. Anyone who doesn't understand that is short a chromosome or two.
It's been 40 years since felons were barred from owning guns and that's part of the whole penalty of being a felon. Don't like it, don't become one.

You think all prior felons, including tax evaders and the like, must be stripped of their right to defend themselves with a firearm. Thank you for giving me a sense of how your internal logic is set up. Accordingly, I refuse to argue with you. However, I have a question for you to contemplate. Mr. Law Abiding Citizen, how many felonies have you committed without getting caught?

-Jake

 

[Jeffreii]

View from the other side...

FWIW, I happened to [very] briefly describe this situation to my parents, who are both anti-gun, for thier perspective on the issue, mostly pertaining to the term 'arsenal' being used for 6 guns. I did not want to get into the whole story or they would have thrown it out with a "all right enough about guns, I don't want to hear about it"...yeah, they disslike guns that much.

I mostly wanted the perspective from an anti-gun viewpoint, since I can't see it from their side. This is what they said, [paraphrased]:

moms response:
"six guns? That is not good. Not really an arsenal, but in a way it is. You don't need that many guns. Anyone with that many is focusing on the wrong thing. That is not good - you need to concentrate on better things. Anyone with that many guns is not up to anything good, and an indicator of spending too much time on guns. "

dads response:
"That is a way to dangerous situation with that many guns around. That is a hazard to society - they could too easily get in the wrong hands. Guns are very dangerous, and can kill. They are too dangerous to have in anyones house or car - especially that many. What if it was a gang of 6 people and one had 6 guns"

Ignorant to "what an individual does, not what an individual has" as a means to do a judgement call. However, both claimed that by having that many guns, your mind is not on the correct path.

Anyhow, perhaps this will help trying to understand the "other side" - although I cannot understand much of anything that is illogical. I don't have to have proof, but it needs to atleast make sense.

 

[jaholder1971]

jaholder wrote:

Quote:
It takes stupidity to do it in the first place and stupidity to get caught.

It takes a criminal act bad enough to be labeled a felony by law and/or repeated disregard for smaller crimes until the charges become a felony.

It also takes either someone admitting they committed a felony or a jury of 12 deciding unanimously that you are one.

Tax Evasion and burglary/ breaking and entering have been felonies for a long, long time. Anyone who doesn't understand that is short a chromosome or two.
It's been 40 years since felons were barred from owning guns and that's part of the whole penalty of being a felon. Don't like it, don't become one.
You think all prior felons, including tax evaders and the like, must be stripped of their right to defend themselves with a firearm. Thank you for giving me a sense of how your internal logic is set up. Accordingly, I refuse to argue with you. However, I have a question for you to contemplate. Mr. Law Abiding Citizen, how many felonies have you committed without getting caught?

-Jake

Simple: None.

You're not a felon until you're caught, charged and either admit to the crime or are convicted until then you've done nothing.

Here's a helpful tip: If you have committed an alleged crime that might be a felony, it would be helpful to your self to exercise that right to remain silent about it on public internet discussion boards. Most felons are just that because they couldn't keep their claptraps shut.

 

[paintballdude902]

i wonder if he had like 100 550rnd .22lr bricks lol

if thats an arsenal then ive got one in my room with 5 guns

 

[jakemccoy]

jaholder wrote:

Simple: None.

You're not a felon until you're caught, charged and either admit to the crime or are convicted until then you've done nothing.

Here's a helpful tip: If you have committed an alleged crime that might be a felony, it would be helpful to your self to exercise that right to remain silent about it on public internet discussion boards. Most felons are just that because they couldn't keep their claptraps shut.

Hi jaholder,

I didn't ask you to respond. I asked you to contemplate.

Also, I'm not sure if you understood my question. I asked you to contemplate how many felonies you’ve committed without getting caught. I didn’t ask if you’re a felon.

Even if you say it’s zero, either you’re actually wrong or you’re in a tiny minority of people. I’ll bet less than one percent of gun owners have actually committed zero felonies in their entire life. For example, a conspiracy to commit [felony] is so easy to be involved in that you'd be appalled; conspiracy is equally easy for a prosecutor to prove. Also, there are many harmless pranks that young people carry out and that are actually felonies. For a significant number of felonies, the link to a firearms prohibition is nonsencical.

It comes down to a casting stones type of thing. A person who has committed a felony and was not caught has no moral high ground over an actual felon. The current system broadly regards the "felon" status as an acceptable basis to strip a man’s right to defend himself with a gun. If any rational pro-gun person were to slow down and think about what that means, I mean really think, they should conclude that such a broad rule is unjust.

Regards,
Jake McCoy

P.S. You strike me as a person who is without sin. Enjoy God's green light to throw some stones!

 

[chrlefxtrt]

I have a much older relative (2nd cousin) that is a convicted felon. I once asked him why he went to prison and he told me: "I was a bad burgler". He was never a vioent felon and it happened 30 years ago. He has been a model citizen ever since and regularly petitions the governor for a pardon. He is also a legal firearms owner (cap and ball pistols and muzzle loaders that is).
I have thought about petitioning the governor b/c if anything I think that my cousin should be able to vote. He has never complained and has always admitted that his felony is no ones fault but his own. Not every felon is a bad person. I think that gun prohibition should be limited to violent felons. JMHO