Nearly 900 Assault Rifles, Handguns Seized From Home

Status
Not open for further replies.
/*"There's only one reason why these weapons are made, and that's to kill," Telish said.*/

If I have to hear one more special agent/police chief/department spokesman/junior assistant crosswalk guard get up and repeat this same inane statement again, I will go into seizures and collapse.

"Gee Mr. Telish, do you really think that a M2 .50 BMG made during WWII was crafted expressly to shoot kill enemy soldiers on purpose? How did you figure that out for yourself and the rest of us, or did you call Inspector Clouseau in on the case, and he connected the dots for you?
 
Norton said:
Now...as to how he was able to obtain all of those firearms, one can only guess. Sounds like there will be more arrests as they pursue the source of those guns.

Let's hope so. If the govt would start enforcing the laws we already have and stop slapping the people illegally supplying the weapons on the wrist when caught then maybe people would not spend so much time coming up with schemes that only make it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain firearms. Start making the penalties for illegally selling a weapon something to be afraid of instead of just trying to make it impossible to legally buy one.
 
The first thing I have to add is that this is the first time I think I've ever heard, or read the word "Cucamonga" without it being said by Bugs Bunny... :D

I'm sure it's a common place name for you Californicators, but even for a Midwesterner like me who's used to place names like the Milwaukee exurb named "Oconomowoc" (Oh-CON-oh-mo-wak...) "Cucamonga" is still pretty darn funny.

All the stuff about Castro, Mexicans, explosives and whatnot sounds like this might have been a guy doing our dirty work for us in the past, and Uncle Sam got tired of him...

As to "good" stuff I do see a USAS-12 and a Striker-12/Streetsweeper in the pile, That's two Destructive Device violations right there. And what appears to be a few different A3 stocked HK's of various make. Even as "legal semi's" they're worth a pretty penny.
 
AJ DUAL - ""Cucamonga" without it being said by Bugs Bunny... "



AJ, don't you mean, "Jack Benny"???? :)

L.W.
 
I am a little curious about how he got all those toys. I mean, he couldn't legally own Class III, and I can't picture buying that many machine guns would be easy even if you did have a mountain of money.

Looks like there's some rare stuff in the one photo they had. Vintage automatic rifles and subguns, etc.
 
The guy owned these things illegally. OK, His bad.

But, for our good, what did he do with them and what did
he intend to do with them?

My only real problem, so far, with this guy is he was an
over-enthused accumulator who had a bunch of guns in
defiance of the law and if he got burgled he could
not report them as stolen. That is bad enough, but again,
I am more concerned with what his intentions were, whether
he had one gun or one thousand. If he intended no harm,
darn it sounds like he took more guns off the streets than any
buy back program I ever heard about, and gave them a nice
home with an underground range to play in.
 
M14E2 BOOHOOOOBOOOOHOOOOO.

Shall not be infringed ....................... hhhhmmmmmmm
 
Here are a few of the “assault weapons, submachine guns, [and] automatic rifles.”

23014908.jpg


Do I not see a muzzleloader or two in there? Dangerous “assault weapons” indeed!

~G. Fink
 
From the looks of his "stash" it appears he was still buying and selling as a side business. Probably not paying taxes either.

Those firearms do not look like anything menacing to me. But we need to keep things in perspective. What he owns is not the issue. The issue is that he is "illegally trafficing" weapons or at the very least "illegally obtaining" them. The very thing that cause normal citizens to face stiffer and stiffer restrictions.

We should be in no way defending this guy (or play games of semantics with the article) but hoping they make an example out of him. The message needs to be "if you break the laws you get dumped on hard" not "the laws are silly so ignore them". The later just causes people to say "well, I guess we need stronger gun restrictions". And we all know who looses when that happens.
 
And the weapons carried by the police are made for ...?

There made to help babies in strollers cross the street.

Among the cache was a Chinese-made SKS assault rifle and other rifles illegal for citizens to own.

Now I'm just scared.

There's only one reason why these weapons are made, and that's to kill," Telish said.

I think I'm about to vomit.

-Dev
 
PlayboyPenguin said:
The issue is that he is “illegally trafficing” weapons or at the very least “illegally obtaining” them.…

I think the unspoken point is that the ownership or trade of firearms and other weapons should be no more illegal than the relationship you and your partner share. Unfortunately, both of these things have been, are, or will be “illegal” to some extent.

~G. Fink
 
Last edited:
I'd bet that for every person like this found, there are quite literally 100s with an inventory like his that will never be found. Americans overall are too stubborn to obey silly laws, on the whole...


Wasn't there an estimate done by the BATFE in years past about how many unregistered 1934NFA items there are? It was in the millions, IIRC.
 
I've mentioned several times in the past that Sten kits are sometimes sold by a vendor in one corner of a gunshow and receiver tubes with the template glued on are sold in another corner. I looked at one of those tubes one day and figured I could cut it out with a hacksaw, Dremel and file in about six hours. another half-hour with a tig welder and .... Well, I have serious doubts that many people bought those individual parts and simply put them away out of fear of getting caught.
As a matter of fact, a bit over six years ago, when the Y2K ball dropped and everybody was outside celebrating, among the horns, fireworks and pan-banging I heard the unmistakable sound of some variety of short-round squirt gun. They're out there. Sometimes I wish I had one-- until I think of a buddy who bought an M16 and is going broke feeding it.
Penguin, I stopped worrying about what the politicians will do a long time ago. They're going to disarm us regardless of what kind of publicity some guy in California gets. Our only hope is to stock up on guns and ammo-- regardless of their inane laws! Gun grabbers are our enemies. Never let your enemy dictate the rules of engagement! If you are not now in violation of some obscure law you soon will be. Don't sweat it, just keep on keeping on.
 
oldfart said:
I googled his name and found a couple of hits that might give a hint of what he was busted for. Unfortunately, they're .pdf files from the courts. Large .pdf files are kinda user-unfriendly to dial-up accounts like mine. If anyone is interested,
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documen...s/98D0967P.pdf
and
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documen...s/01D0410P.pdf
These 2 pdf's seem to be about a waste-company bankruptcy hearing and a RICO-complaint regarding alleged mail and wire fraud as well as racketeering. I can't see anything firearms-related in there.
 
The guy sounds like a patriot standing up to unjust laws to me. I would wager that his original conviction for "explosives" was some trumped up charge over a tracer round or some illegal fireworks. I'm sure that the ATF could find some "explosives" in my house between common household cleaners, reloading components and gardening supplies.

Soon enough we will all be felons
 
..... still buying and selling ....

press release "we think he was doing it (buying weapons) the whole time since 1995"

If he were thought to be selling, I believe the feds would have trumpeted that.

He still sounds like an accumulater of a collection, being a dealer was an excuse.

".... possession of firearms by a felon, possession of destructive devices and
possession of deadly weapons ...."

possession charges, no illegal dealing charges, significant?
 
We should be in no way defending this guy (or play games of semantics with the article) but hoping they make an example out of him. The message needs to be "if you break the laws you get dumped on hard" not "the laws are silly so ignore them". The later just causes people to say "well, I guess we need stronger gun restrictions". And we all know who looses when that happens.

What? It was already illegal for him to own those weapons. Anyone with an inclination to do so is already going to take this as a sign that stricter gun control laws are needed. That is what sheeple do.

Why would anyone want the BATFE to make an example out of anyone? An arrogant and corrupt federal organization illegitimately spawned with the sole purpose of infringing on rights guaranteed to us by a higher power--and you want them to make an example out of this guy? Correct me if I am wrong but it didn't turn out well last time they tried to make an example out of someone. If they try it with this guy he should consider himself lucky they didn't gas and burn his family. I say the federal government should use this case to make a statement of another sort--gun control doesn't work and the BATFE is largely ineffective. They do little more than hassle people at gun shows and shoot people's children when they are out walking the dogs, and they need to be disbanded.

How about "if you break the silly law you get dumped on hard?" Because that is what this amounts too. A free society can hardly justify making ownership of anything illegal. For as long as trigger happy clowns in body armor are allowed by the state to bust down your door with submachine guns and confiscate private property from private citizens, we all lose. Dragging this guy out on the rack to make a publicity statement isn't going to change this simple fact, and it certainly isn't going to make those federal agents any less hotty and arrogant.
 
mr_dove said:
I would wager that his original conviction for "explosives" was some trumped up charge over a tracer round or some illegal fireworks.

I wouldn't call C-4 "fireworks."
:neener:
 
Those two pdf files were indeed fruitless. I poked around a bit on Findlaw.com and found a case with the California Court of Appeals that does bear on this. Here's an excerpt:


Background
Jamie Wolden was found in possession of a small amount of explosive known as C-4, arrested, and taken to the Baldwin Park Police station. Sheriff's deputies responded and, after further investigation, secured search warrants for defendant Robert Ferro's home and an abandoned chicken processing plant owned by him. Deputies found five pounds of C-4 in a cabinet in an office in the chicken plant. At the same time, other deputies served the search warrant at defendant's home, where he was detained during the search. After being notified that C-4 was found at the chicken plant, deputies at the home arrested defendant.

The defense attempted to pin possession of the chicken plant C-4 on Wolden. Defendant denied it was his.

Charged with three separate counts involving possession of prohibited materials, defendant secured pretrial dismissal of one count and successfully moved to suppress the results of the search of a pickup truck in which prohibited materials were found. The jury acquitted him of another count and convicted him of a single count of possession of an explosive under Penal Code section 12303.2.

On appeal, defendant presents several claims, including error during jury selection, improper exclusion of defense evidence, insufficiency of evidence, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

There was a lot more but the charge was about possession of C-4. Whether or not the prosecuror was correct will always be open to debate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top