500 guns found in elderly's home

[peacefuljeffrey]

Technically they've all been used in crimes. As he is a convicted felon, every time he bought a gun it was a felony.

I guess this shows us all how well anti-gun laws work.

But leftists will say that we need only the police force to keep us safe. What if this guy were a MURDERER convicted felon, and had obtained these guns so he could kill, rather than just collect? The law that says he couldn't have these guns worked reallll well, didn't it?

I am on the fence about the felon/gun owner issue. I regard violent felons as people who have abrogated their right to be placed on the same level as you and me. They demonstrated that they will not abide by the social contract.

Then again, if the justice system sentences them, and they complete their punishment, why should they not have their rights back?

The simple answer is, "They have demonstrated a propensity to
abuse those rights.

It's not a simple question, though. What if they have reformed? There is no comprehensive way to verify this yea or nay.

I still would like to know what PC there existed to search the house.


Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Browningguy claims to be pro gun, however when he pasted

my posting, namely:

"This kind of post really toasts my hienie.
This is a pro gun group.
That is the kind of tripe that I would expect to hear from a blissninny or a flaming liberal.
This is a pro gun group."

He left out the last line. Namely,

Please take another look at 2a.

That's what he didn't do. He is an authoritarian. Probably holds Hamilton in high regard. Then he said,

With all due respect what a bunch of rubbish. I'm as pro-gun as anyone in the country, even own my share of EBR's. BUT I DON"T WANT CONVICTED FELONS OWNING FIREARMS!!!

Yes, he may be pro-gun, but he is not pro-constitution. If he was a veteran or a .gov electee, appointee or LEO he would have had to take an oath promising to protect and defend the constitution. Apparently he has not taken that oath.

Please read 2a again and tell me where it says felons are not people.

If they can take 2a away from some of us, why can't they take 1a away from others of us? Chances are, he would like to take 1a away from some of us too.

He is an authoritarian.

 

[txgho1911]

TX has a few twists in Criminal Justice

There are thousands of people in TX who at one time or another made a mistake, goofed judgement, or royaly screwed up. Texas has a second chance within the criminal code. They call it "deffered adjudication". It is however not a second chance for every individual who completes this second chance probation. Instead in todays information age any prospective employer, spouse, or state / fed agency will find the records and consider the VERY brief description and disposition any way they choose.
State law holds this type of ruling as NOT a conviction.
In some cases records can be expunged and non disclosure orders issued. TX DPS will allways consider DA as a conviction and their records are heldover even with expungement. This leaves the man or woman who accepted DA instead of fighting a weak case with no possible chance of ever getting a CHL in TX and probably many other states as well.
There are many supporting articles and discussion at www-deferredadjudication-org.

I am familiar with this through a family member. Options for recourse and relief for a second chance do not exist. Convictions can get a pardon with the right paperwork supporting that action. No such possible action for DA.

For those in TX I would recomend no one ever accept such an option.

If a person is not beholding to the state incarcerated, parolled, or probation I believe should have all rights listed in the BOR and those implied.

Browningguy do you trust no one you work with or live around?

 

[CB900F]

Fella's;

If jumping to conclusions were an olympic event, some of you would be competing for the gold medal.

WT; How do you know fer sure, fer sure that the collection hadn't passed into the possession of the gentleman's wife?

Central Texas: Please don't confuse a moral position with the law. If you think all laws are moral, I've got a deal for you in tooth fairy futures. BTW, examine the converse. And no, I'm not talkin' about tennis shoes.

900F

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Trying to clarify.........I yam not picking on Mr. Browningguy. He probably just didn't think through his posting.

As best I can recall, the State of Texas used to, when they released a felon from prison, give him a Horse, a suit of clothes, and a shotgun.

Where have we gone wrong?

Have we all become so stupid that we allow the flaming liberals and socialists to pervert our constitution? Wise up! Read it!

When we blindly, without question, follow the dictates of .gov we will end up loading people into the cattle cars.

Nobody who is smart enough to run a computer and a keyboard is too stupid to understand 2a.

Please read it.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

so why sell illegal weapons?

All we know is that he was convicted of doing this. We don't know if he actually did it. Remember that Randy Weaver would likely have been convicted of something similar if it went to trial (not sure if it finally did). In the Weaver case, it was the FBI agents who shortened the shotgun barrels a little more and then told him that they would not prosecute him for it if he helped them infiltrate a white supremacist group. We must assume that Weaver wasn't the only person who has had this happen to him.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I regard violent felons as people who have abrogated their right to be placed on the same level as you and me. They demonstrated that they will not abide by the social contract.

If that is the case, they belong at the end of a rope, or in prison for life. Any man, however, who is not at the end of a rope or in prison, is a free man, and has the right to defend his life, i.e., to own and carry arms. Any law to the contrary is invalid ab initio.

 

[jdberger]

Derby Fals and I had a round-n-round about the felon/firearm issue a while ago. Though (I don't think) the Constitution specifically says anything about felons and civil rights, the concept of felons losing their rights is pretty old and predates the Constitution and was carried over.

The exclusion of felons from the body politic derived from the concept of "civil death" that had its origins in Roman and European law, both as a form of retribution and a general deterrent. Such a designation meant that a lawbreaker had no legal status. The concept was brought to North America by the English in the Colonial period.

It is popular in the RKBA community to claim that there are NO LIMITS on the rights enumerated in the BOR - but it isn't true. The 1st Amendment has restrictions - fighting words, fire in a theater etc. So does the 2nd. And all those rights are contingent on good and responsible citizenship.

Do you really think that Chuck Manson, if ever released from jail should retain his right to own a firearm? How about those jolly folks in the Weather Underground or the Symbionese Liberation Army?

<nomex jammies 'ON'>

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I yam sorry, Mr. berger, but the constitution is very explicit.

When you start saying, "just because that's what they said, it's not what they meant." You might as well be a flaming liberal or a socialist.

The founders were WAY smarter and more learned than me. Or of You. They had felons back in yon days of yore.

I repeat the question:

If they can take 2a away from some of us, why can't they take 1a away from others of us? Chances are, he would like to take 1a away from some of us too.

 

[jdberger]

I yam sorry, Mr. berger, but the constitution is very explicit.

When you start saying, "just because that's what they said, it's not what they meant." You might as well be a flaming liberal or a socialist.

I'm going to assume that you are using the term "liberal" in a pejorative sense. You see, our form of government is a "liberal democracy." And "socialism" is more interested in economic outcomes than civil libertarian ones.

So, name calling aside, our Constitution didn't rise up from nothing. It was predated by centuries of political thought. Jefferson didn't come up with the Declaration of Independence by himself. The words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...

are products of political treatises by St. Augustine, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and John Calvin to name a few.

The founders were WAY smarter and more learned than me. Or of You.

It is tempting to hold up the founders as gods to be worshipped, but they had faults, too. Jefferson ended up in a huge fight with the Supreme Court over the power of the executive branch. He thought that since he was president, he was beyond reproach. (MArbury v. Madison) He was wrong. The founders were men, great men that created the greatest form of government in the history of man, but men and fallible men at that.

And yes, "they had felons in yon days of yore" and they were treated as pariahs and undeserving of the benefits of citizenship.

Having exhibited a propensity to violate the social contract on at least one previous occasion, criminals cannot be trusted to exercise the franchise without corruption. Allowing ex-convicts to retain all of their rights of citizenship could have a perverse effect on the ability of law abiding citizens to reduce the deadly and debilitating crime in their communities.

A variant of this argument focuses on macro-level consequences for the legitimacy of democratic government. It maintains that the purity of civil rights are undermined by the participation of tainted individuals. In the philosophical arguments associated with the republican (small r) and communitarian traditions, for example, the political community can remain viable only insofar as it consists of citizens who respect the rules of democratic procedure and can be expected to live within the norms those rules generate. In conservative variants of these arguments, the presence of criminals within the polity potentially erodes confidence in the community by diluting the rights of noncriminal citizens.

 

[SavageDoc45]

ok, 2 cents.

The Constitution says "right of the people" followed by "bear arms" and "shall not be infringed". While I haven't quoted the passage in length, I think we can all agree that "felons" doesn't enter into it.

Whether or not "felons" are "people" legally is an artificial distinction in my book.

Once we start deciding this person and that person can or can't have weapons, what's to stop us there?

Do I trust convicted felons with the sacred rights and duties of citizenship? Nope, sorry, but then again, I don't trust the unconvicted felons either. Come to think of it, I don't really trust anybody except those I know personaly.

Oh yeah, that's why I'm armed, 'cause I can't be sure everyone else aint.

Back when we hung, shot, or electricuted our worst cases and sent the rest to the Service or hard labour, instead of cable TV and three squares a day for maybe half the sentance anyway, we had much less of a problem.

 

[jdberger]

Awww...forget it... :banghead:

 

[c_yeager]

Guy has to be an odd ball. Being a physician is a very lucrative profession, even more so when that guy probably practiced, so why sell illegal weapons?

I would imagine that actually being convicted of performing back-alley abortions *probably* cost him his medical license.

 

[Brick]

I have my serious doubts he had AK-47s, 500lbs of gunpowerder and 100,000 rounds of ammunition.

Given the media's already wonderful accuracy with such, don't you'd think they'd swirl the facts a little?

 

[buttrap]

well despite all the BS show me where the consitution says felons cant own arms? we could dig up Washington and Jefferson for that if its pushed I guess. All you have to do know is hit a pothole in the road and bump your head and wreck an you are a fellon..should have known that they are spending road tax on pork....

 

[axeman_g]

JDBERGER .... good argument

I like the points you make and I see what you are trying to say. i think the cropcircle is taking a more Libertarian point of view while you are more along the strict replublic mind set.
IMHO ... the man is a felon. He lost his rights ... it happens and is a consequence of his earlier actions. My wife could not buy a gun or vote for 7 years in the state of Georgia for bouncing an out of state check for $35, felony. I think the states hold the law on felons lowing rights. 2A can not be taken away by states, but it can and has been limited by them.

 

[stevelyn]

Considering that NJ is the setting, what would you want to bet that the warrant and siezure would have occurred anyway regardless of the old man's criminal record?

 

[Langenator]

Speculations based on the info found in the article:

-when the cops brought his wife home, they said that "doors and windows were open." With 500 guns in the house, it's a good bet that at least one was in plain sight, maybe even an eeevilll "assault weapon." Given that this happened in the PRNJ, to the cops there anyone who owns a gun would immediately be suspected of being some sort of violent loony, and they'd check up on them when they got back to the station. Noting the fact that the man was a convicted felon, they went back with a warrant.

-any competent lawyer would argue at trial that the guns all belonged to the wife, unless the cops/ATF can produce evidence of the guns being purchased in the husband's name after the convictions.

-the guy may very well have had "evil assault weapons," purchased before they became "evil assault weapons." Given that he and his wife were around 70 or so when NJ decided to require them all to be registered, it's entirely possible that they simply did no know of the requirement.

-Does the PRNJ have a limit on how much ammo a person can have? I remember hearing of such a thing in Marxachussetts. Paging Geekwitha.45...

At any rate, 100,000 rounds with 500 guns works out to about 200 rounds per gun. Given that he's 82 and needs dialysis, and his wife is described as feeble, it's good bet they don't get out to shoot much anymore. And 82 years can lead to a lot of accumulated ammo.

-the 500 pounds of powder is probably at least a violation of fire codes, if nothing else. I imagine having a similar wieght of gasoline on the premises (about 250 gallons, if my math is roughly accuarate) or anything else that is excessively flamable requires special permitting, notification signs, etc, if only to warn the fire dept if they have to respond to a fire at the address.

Notice that he was only booked on the charge of "creating a hazard" or something like that. That's probably the fire hazard from the powder and maybe the ammunition. That tells me they're still investigating the guns, and who owns them.

Predition: the guns will be found to be legally the property of the wife, and thus the husband is not in violation of the "felon in possession" laws. However, they will be found in violation of the PRNJ's "assault weapon" laws, and all of the guns confiscated anyway. Plus any violations of the fire code for the powder and/or ammunition.

 

[MikeIsaj]

***? Since when is leaving your doors and windows open PC for a search warrant?

It's not. But when taking an elderly confused resident back to her home, you have taken custody of someone who is of diminished capacity to care for herself. Once you do so, even temprorarily, you have an obligation to ensure that you release that person to a situation where they are safe and able to care for themselves. If you return an elderly person to a wide open home, you will check and secure that home before leaving her there. While doing that you may reasonably observe things that give probable cause to believe a criminal act has been committed. You are free to act on that PC without a warrant although it is always better to get the warrant if the situation allows it. The DA will appreciate the hours of work you save them by getting the warrant.

 

[WT]

CB900F - nobody has the right to keep 500 lb of explosives in a crowded residential neighborhood. The New Jersey Fire Code limits possession to 36# of modern powder and 5# of black powder. Past that, a permit is required as is sprinklers and annual inspection by the fire marshal. Powder in those quantitites must be kept in a bunker at least 140 feet away from an occupied building.

Ridgefield used to be the home of Navy Arms and Val Forgett. Some of you may have heard of him. Navy Arms was not allowed to keep quantities of powder in their store, per the NJ Fire Code. They upped and moved to West Virginia.

So far the doctor has only been charged with the fire code violation. I am sure that the police are performing an inventory of the firearms and additional criminal charges will be pursued. Give them time. The fat lady hasn't yet sung.

As noted in the first paragraph of the original story, the police escorted the 82 year old befuddled (Alzheimers?) wife home and found the doors and windows open. They probably entered the home to insure her safety and saw the guns lying around, in plain view. I guess this gave them PC. They then went and got a warrant and returned THE NEXT DAY. I don't see that the police did anything wrong.

Keeping so much powder incorrectly stored, in a crowded neighborhood was irresponsible and put a lot of innocent people at risk.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Derby Fals and I had a round-n-round about the felon/firearm issue a while ago. Though (I don't think) the Constitution specifically says anything about felons and civil rights, the concept of felons losing their rights is pretty old and predates the Constitution and was carried over.

The exclusion of felons from the body politic derived from the concept of "civil death" that had its origins in Roman and European law, both as a form of retribution and a general deterrent. Such a designation meant that a lawbreaker had no legal status. The concept was brought to North America by the English in the Colonial period.

True, but you are a "lawbreaker" or "felon" only until you have been released from your term of imprisonment, at which point you have paid your debt and the people have determined that you are no longer a threat to society.

It is popular in the RKBA community to claim that there are NO LIMITS on the rights enumerated in the BOR - but it isn't true. The 1st Amendment has restrictions - fighting words, fire in a theater etc. So does the 2nd. And all those rights are contingent on good and responsible citizenship.

Not correct. Read the actual First Amendment. Congress has never made, and cannot make, a law addressing what you describe. Those things are in the realm of tort law, not federal statutory law. They are what the law terms "verbal acts," not speech anyway. An example of a verbal act is if I say to you, "Let's you and me rob the First National Bank tomorrow, and here's how I propose we do it." This is speech in the common sense of the word, but it is more essentially an element to the crime of conspiracy. This distinction between speech and verbal acts predates the Constitution. These are state matters anyway, and not the proper business of Congress, which is the body referred to in the First Amendment.

Do you really think that Chuck Manson, if ever released from jail should retain his right to own a firearm? How about those jolly folks in the Weather Underground or the Symbionese Liberation Army?

You are missing the point. People like Chuck Manson, et al, should never be released from jail, because releasing someone from jail is the government/people certifying that said person 1) has fully paid their debt, and 2) is no longer a significant threat to society.

 

[dhoomonyou]

I think there should be an auction and party at their house.
All cash proceeds can go to a nice retirement home.

 

[roscoe]

the 500 pounds of powder is probably at least a violation of fire codes, if nothing else. I imagine having a similar wieght of gasoline on the premises (about 250 gallons, if my math is roughly accuarate)

80 gallons at 6.25lbs per

 

[richyoung]

-the 500 pounds of powder is probably at least a violation of fire codes, if nothing else. I imagine having a similar wieght of gasoline on the premises (about 250 gallons, if my math is roughly accuarate)

One galon of gasolin weighs approximately 6.15 pounds - (average of 5.8 to 6.3 on the high side, depending on type and addititves...) 500 lbs = approx 81 gallons - less than two 55 gallon drums. FWIW, I have seen 500 to 1000 gallon air force surplus drop tanks mounted on stands and used to gravity feed fuel at numerous farms and ranches.

 

[Baba Louie]

Hard for me to believe that a convicted felon was allowed to hold and maintain a state license as a medical practitioner unless there were extenuating circumstances which his state board felt justified in trusting him with people's lives.

Hmmmmm. Kinda like owning firearms in a way, isn't it?

Probably much more to this story than we're reading (as always).