(CT) Newington Man Accused Of Regaining Seized Gun

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
THE HARTFORD COURANT


February 4, 2003 Tuesday, 7 SPORTS FINAL

SECTION: CONNECTICUT; Pg. B3

LENGTH: 375 words

HEADLINE: NEWINGTON MAN ACCUSED OF REGAINING SEIZED GUN;
BAIL WAS SET AT $1 MILLION FOR THE 59-YEAR-OLD SUSPECT, WHO IS CHARGED WITH POSSESSING ONE OF DOZENS OF WEAPONS POLICE HAD TAKEN FROM HIM THREE YEARS AGO.

BYLINE: THOMAS D. WILLIAMS; Courant Staff Writer

DATELINE: NEW BRITAIN --

BODY:
A 59-year-old Newington man was arrested over the weekend and charged with possessing a gun that was among dozens of weapons -- including a flame-thrower -- seized from his apartment three years ago.

Bernard Kryznowek was held on charges of criminal possession of a weapon and contempt of the court order that forced the sale of his weapons in 1999. Bail was set at $1 million. Police said a city gun dealer reported that Kryznowek had one of those guns in his possession at the dealer's business over the weekend.

Supervisory State's Attorney Mary Rose Palmese said Kryznowek is "a very serious danger to the community."

Kryznowek appeared Monday before Superior Court Judge Sheila M. Prats, who set bail and continued the case until Feb. 18.

Kryznowek was forced to give up dozens of weapons, including the flame-thrower and assault rifles fitted with laser sights, after he allegedly threatened to hurt a relative during a disturbance in Farmington in November 1999.

The charge stemming from that case was dropped, a defense attorney said Monday.

Palmese said that when the authorities searched his residences after the incident, Kryznowek's Newington residence was crammed with weapons, and there were several in his Farmington condominium.

Police used a then-new state law allowing them to seize firearms from potentially dangerous people without arresting them.

A month later, said the prosecutor, a New Britain Superior Court judge ordered the weapons turned over to a city weapons dealer so they could be sold for Kryznowek on consignment.

State police arrested Kryznowek over the weekend on a warrant after the gun dealer reported the gun possession, Palmese said. Police said Kryznowek was attempting to use a relative as "a decoy" to repurchase guns.

The prosecutor said Kryznowek owns a company and has substantial cash he might use to post a bond.

Kryznowek, speaking through a lawyer, said he is a good citizen, not a flight risk and is not in possession of guns.

But Kit Tierney, the state victim's advocate, speaking for state police, said investigators want Kryznowek to return a gun he still has and want the court to order him not to threaten witnesses or to obtain possession of any weapons if he is freed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:what: Assault rifles with laser sights? Those must be doubly dangerous.....
 
The charge stemming from that case was dropped, a defense attorney said Monday.

Police used a then-new state law allowing them to seize firearms from potentially dangerous people without arresting them.

So let me get this straight... He was charged with a crime. Those charges were dropped so the man has no record of conviction. The police then confiscate his weapons because "he might do something bad".

The citizen (who has never been convicted of a crime remember) is now being charged with attempting to re-purchase his siezed property.

Nah, couldn't be happening. Remember, this is America. Things like this don't take place. Adjust your foil hats and move along sheeple, er, "Citizen". Nothing to see here.

You're not paranoid if they're really out to get you.


:cuss: :banghead: :cuss: :banghead:
 
Okay, if I'm reading this right, he wasn't convicted of anything, why are they taking away his guns? Am I just too stupid to understand this? Is it because the states attorney, not a judge, said that he is "a very serious danger to the community." ?
Police used a then-new state law allowing them to seize firearms from potentially dangerous people without arresting them.
If provoked, a lot of peaceful people could be potentially dangerous, where do they draw the line on who is potentially dangerous???


Isn't the bail a bit excessive? Whatever crime that they think he committed here does not warrant $1,000,000 in bail.
Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed.......
-------------------------------------------------------
Two layers, shiny side in and out!
Just get the new non-stick kind, the rays from Uncle Sam's satelites will just slide right off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top