The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 3, 2013, 12:09 AM   #1
rayway
Member
 
Join Date: November 8, 2012
Posts: 35
DHS Raids Gun Collector – Confiscates Nearly 1,500 Guns – No Charges Filed

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/02/dh...charges-filed/ People need to talk about this it should be heard all over the US. It really makes me feel sad for this gun collector and who knows mabey it will make you mad. No deliberate intentions of bringing that here but I think people should be aware of what happened.
rayway is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 02:53 AM   #2
LockedBreech
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Rocky Mountain West
Posts: 3,052
This is probably the wrong forum. This seems like a General Gun Discussion thing.

If there actually are never charges filed, and the government does not meet their burden at trial if those charges are filed, then it is an unconstitutional abuse of power and he will almost certainly be able to get recourse of some sort in court.

However, if he actually has been into some bad stuff, police are, as far as I know, allowed to confiscate weapons immediately prior to charges or while the charges are being crafted. According to the news article:

Quote:
Neighbors said Adams was a gun collector, and some heard he was a licensed gun seller, too.

Federal investigators confirm that. However, they're also investigating him for possible gun smuggling, tax evasion and violating importation laws.
Since we don't have access to the case the Feds have against him, we really aren't in a position to have an opinion on it. He is innocent until proven guilty, and if the government cannot overcome that presumption, I will join the outcry and even donate to any legal fund for him. However, I will not prematurely cry oppression when I don't know all the facts. I don't want to be in the position of having defended a gun smuggling tax evader if he turns out to be guilty.
__________________
Beretta PX4 Type F Fullsize .40 S&W | Beretta 92FS 9x19 Para | Beretta 8040 Cougar Type G .40 S&W | Rock Island Armory GI 1911 .45 ACP | Sig Sauer SP2022 Stainless 9x19 Para | Sig Sauer P6 9x19 Para | Colt Python 4" .357 Magnum | Colt 1968 Det. Spec. .38 Spc. | Ruger LCP .380 ACP | Daniel Defense M4V1 5.56x45 | Alpine M1 Carbine .30 | Steyr M1895 8x56 | Ruger 10/22 .22LR |1943 Izhevsk Mosin-Nagant M91/30 7.62x54R | Remington 870 12GA
LockedBreech is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 03:48 AM   #3
therealdeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 627
I read about this. I agree there isn't enough info, but it almost came off as andor seemed that the amount of firearms owned was an issue. I don't know of any laws regarding limits on guns owned, so this was very confusing/disturbing to me.
__________________
NRA Distinguished Life Member

"Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan)
therealdeal is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 06:13 AM   #4
Spur0701
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2005
Posts: 152
If they seized the guns then they were seized either as evidence of or fruits of the crime they are investigating (unless they were contraband, say for example a SBR or full auto......or if they were an instrumentality of a crime of something like a murder). From what I gleaned from the story it looks like they think he was smuggling stuff from outside the country in order to add to his collection.

Oh.....and often, at least at the federal level, they won't file charges until the investigation is sorta at the end.
Spur0701 is offline  
Old February 3, 2013, 09:05 AM   #5
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,492
The article mentions that he is an importer as well as a collector and seller. The reference to omitting marking to increase value sounds like they are talking about import marks, not serial numbers. Not sure which law, but I would guess the GCA of 1968 requires importers to mark their identity on guns they import. People who collect mil-surp guns are often willing to pay more for a gun that doesn't have an importer's name stamped into it.

I guess we just stay tuned.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old February 3, 2013, 02:43 PM   #6
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 1,449
Maybe this is an abuse of power.

OTOH, maybe this guy did do something illegal and they are going to gather the evidence and get their act together before bringing charges.

It's just too soon to tell at this point.
natman is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 11:14 PM   #7
Levant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2008
Posts: 182
The big story here is that local police swat teams, the county sheriff, and the feds worked together to confiscate 1500 privately owned guns. For all those who say it won't happen, it just did. Again.

Last edited by Levant; February 6, 2013 at 11:15 PM. Reason: bit = big. Fixed typo.
Levant is online now  
Old February 6, 2013, 11:21 PM   #8
KO3422
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2011
Posts: 124
I'm not sure what to make of it. I understand that he's an importer, collector, and seller. I wish we had more of the story to make a better decision.
KO3422 is offline  
Old February 6, 2013, 11:21 PM   #9
Levant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2008
Posts: 182
Quote:
OTOH, maybe this guy did do something illegal
That is why, in the end, confiscation will work. The first assumption will be that the guy is guilty or they wouldn't have gone after him. There must certainly be more to the story than we know. And later, when the press releases "the rest of the story", we'll all take them at their word and feel safer with the dirtbag (this one or any future one) disarmed and off the street.
Levant is online now  
Old February 7, 2013, 01:24 AM   #10
LockedBreech
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Rocky Mountain West
Posts: 3,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levant View Post
That is why, in the end, confiscation will work. The first assumption will be that the guy is guilty or they wouldn't have gone after him. There must certainly be more to the story than we know. And later, when the press releases "the rest of the story", we'll all take them at their word and feel safer with the dirtbag (this one or any future one) disarmed and off the street.
It's also just as possible that this dude was a criminal, and the police were doing EXACTLY what we always ask - better enforcing the laws on the books.
LockedBreech is offline  
Old February 7, 2013, 01:57 AM   #11
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by LockedBreech View Post
It's also just as possible that this dude was a criminal, and the police were doing EXACTLY what we always ask - better enforcing the laws on the books.
The really sad part is that the government has done such an astonishingly fantastic job of convincing all of us that *THEY* are perfectly willingly to screw//enslave/imprison/otherwise mistreat *US* that we've got a significant distrust for *THEM*.

The concept that "we are the government" is so far laughable that if you seriously tried to suggest it to anyone you would be considered a good candidates for hospitalization.

50 years ago Officer O'Mally was some guy you knew.

So what are they doing? Enforcing the laws? Or making an example? What are we going to do? Ask Eric Holder?
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 01:48 AM   #12
Levant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2008
Posts: 182
It is a possibility, LockedBreech. The government has to prove that.
Levant is online now  
Old February 9, 2013, 02:07 AM   #13
LockedBreech
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Rocky Mountain West
Posts: 3,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levant View Post
It is a possibility, LockedBreech. The government has to prove that.
Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. And he bears the burden of proof that the government action was an unlawful one against him. Thus far, to cast either the government or the presumed-innocent accused as the villain is premature. We should just let the system work for now.
LockedBreech is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 02:12 AM   #14
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
OTOH, maybe this guy did do something illegal and they are going to gather the evidence and get their act together before bringing charges.
And to add on to this, what many people don't realize is that in a federal investigation, unlike most local police investigations, the actual arrest and formal charges against the subject usually don't come until the very end of the investigation.

That's also why the federal conviction rate is so high - by the time the feds arrest someone, they've already built a strong case.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 09:59 AM   #15
Rifleman1776
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 25, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 3,309
Agree with others. Too much missing to draw conclusions.
Rifleman1776 is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 10:09 AM   #16
vito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Posts: 638
And remember what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Guns were illegally seized, and after numerous court filings the city of New Orleans was forced to return the seized guns. However, the guns had been "stored" in metal barrels in non-insulated trailers, and were totally rusted. If guns are ever outlawed for private ownership, and then confiscated, it won't happen as some big operation where resistance would be likely. It would take place in many small steps. Possibly starting with simple registration, then a banning of only a few specific weapons, with police visits to the homes/businesses of only those who had those now illegal weapons registered. And the rest of the gun owning community will do nothing because it would not directly affect them, just as now many hunters are more than willing to go along with the banning of non-hunting guns since they believe it does not affect them. Then additional weapon-types would be added to the list of banned guns, and so on and so on until finally there essentially would be no guns in the hands of honest citizens at all (like England and Australia). Of course criminals would continue to own and use those same weapons. This is why we must resist vigorously any attempt for "common sense" gun laws that require registration, which is always going to be the first step before confiscation.
vito is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 10:15 AM   #17
FoghornLeghorn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2011
Posts: 537
Quote:
That's also why the federal conviction rate is so high - by the time the feds arrest someone, they've already built a strong case.
Or, by the time they realize they have no evidence, the accused is already too broke to defend themselves. This is a favored tactic by the IRS, for example.
__________________
"I say, boy, I say, you're doing a lot of choppin', but no chips are flyin'."
FoghornLeghorn is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 11:27 AM   #18
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by vito View Post
it won't happen as some big operation where resistance would be likely. It would take place in many small steps. Possibly starting with simple registration, then a banning of only a few specific weapons, with police visits to the homes/businesses of only those who had those now illegal weapons registered. And the rest of the gun owning community will do nothing because it would not directly affect them, just as now many hunters are more than willing to go along with the banning of non-hunting guns since they believe it does not affect them.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller



I own virtually nothing that is covered in DiFi's AWB bill. But you bet I've been complaining loud, and busting my chops trying to get every cousin I've got to join the NRA.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 12:05 PM   #19
vito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Posts: 638
I too have little that would be affected by some of the proposed regulations, other than some over-ten-round magazines, but if we as gun owners and supporters of the 2nd amendment don't stick together we are likely to lose.
vito is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 12:16 PM   #20
LockedBreech
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: Rocky Mountain West
Posts: 3,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by vito View Post
And remember what happened in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? Guns were illegally seized, and after numerous court filings the city of New Orleans was forced to return the seized guns. However, the guns had been "stored" in metal barrels in non-insulated trailers, and were totally rusted. If guns are ever outlawed for private ownership, and then confiscated, it won't happen as some big operation where resistance would be likely. It would take place in many small steps. Possibly starting with simple registration, then a banning of only a few specific weapons, with police visits to the homes/businesses of only those who had those now illegal weapons registered. And the rest of the gun owning community will do nothing because it would not directly affect them, just as now many hunters are more than willing to go along with the banning of non-hunting guns since they believe it does not affect them. Then additional weapon-types would be added to the list of banned guns, and so on and so on until finally there essentially would be no guns in the hands of honest citizens at all (like England and Australia). Of course criminals would continue to own and use those same weapons. This is why we must resist vigorously any attempt for "common sense" gun laws that require registration, which is always going to be the first step before confiscation.
I'm not specifically disagreeing with any of that, but it's premature to suggest that's what happened here.
LockedBreech is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 12:43 PM   #21
vito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2004
Posts: 638
I don't believe in the black helicopters, or that there is some gigantic conspiracy to enslave us, or take away our guns, etc. but there are powerful forces and individuals who would like to obviate the 2nd Amendment to the degree that they can. The anti-gun crowd, including Pres. Obama, former President and Hilary Clinton, Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Emanuel and many others would not hesitate to take away our right to own, and certainly to carry firearms. Many of these folks have said as much, but will try to do it in achievable steps. Each step will seem like a "reasonable" inroad on 2nd Amendment rights, for "the good of us all", or "for the good of the children" or even "if it saves even one life then it is worth it" which non-gun rights people, or the majority of the population which is too busy with reality TV and celebrity worship to even understand what is going on, will think is okay. Each local step to erode the 2nd Amendment will set a new precedent, unless forced by voters or the courts to be reversed. I really worry about what would happen if one of our five reasonable justices on the Supreme Court leave during Obama's term of office. We won Heller by a single vote, and could easily see the gains made in recent decisions totally lost by a new, liberal Supreme Court. This is why we need to oppose even modest anti-gun efforts. Each time we accept a new limitation, it becomes the new starting point for the anti-gunners to begin their efforts from. Until they remove all guns from citizen's hands they will not be satisfied. And if they were to succeed in taking our guns, and crime increased dramatically with citizens as helpless as they are in England, the anti-gun crowd will likely call for more and more government control in our lives in a hopeless effort to achieve their utopian and fantasy ends. Look at England today, where pointed knives are not allowed, firearms virtually totally gone, and the natural right of self defense denied to citizens. We must remain vigilant and united or it will be the end of this great country and our 237 year experiment in liberty.
vito is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 05:02 PM   #22
FoghornLeghorn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 2, 2011
Posts: 537
Quote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemoller

You left out communists. That was in his original dissertation. I'm not sure I would have stood up for them either.
__________________
"I say, boy, I say, you're doing a lot of choppin', but no chips are flyin'."
FoghornLeghorn is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 06:32 PM   #23
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Sorry. I just copied and pasted the first thing I could find with Google. I wasn't academically rigorous.

I probably would have liked to think I would have stood up for the Communist. Otherwise its just moving the line of hypocrisy.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 10:59 PM   #24
Joe_Pike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 30, 2010
Posts: 1,033
Quote:
And he bears the burden of proof that the government action was an unlawful one against him.
I thought it used to be the other way around.
__________________
Stay Groovy
Joe_Pike is offline  
Old February 9, 2013, 11:03 PM   #25
ScottRiqui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 2,905
Nope - if he's going to accuse the government of an unlawful investigation or prosecution, then the burden of proof is on him, same way it's always been.
ScottRiqui is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12874 seconds with 9 queries