Did anyone hear of this? Confiscation because of "worry"?

[Chris_B]

I read three different stories about this and saw two videos. I'm not being political, this is a thing that happened and it is a news item.

https://6abc.com/police-most-militar...ature/5519469/

I can sum up what I learned:

1) family members helped oldsters clean house
2) family members became concerned over weapons in house and called cops
3) police removed the weapons
4) police removed "mortars and bombs" as well
5) no mention of whether the "mortars and bombs" were live or not
6) some ordnance painted blue, some placed on premises in proximity to other ordnance
7) visually I see "bombs" on the porch. Look similar to 250lb aerial bombs
8) police state 'no charges at this time'
9) rifle upon rifle laid out, then stacked on top of each other in a van, and taken away

Firstly, there's no cop alive that is picking up any live aerial bomb. Secondly they would not be stored on the porch next to each other for any amount of time. Third, if no charges were being filed 'at this time' why was anything removed at all? Most importantly is what are these stories leaving out? It's as if the fact that "guns" were in the house and that the neighbors are "surprised" is accepted as reason enough to come by and take things. I said 'confiscation' before, because I see no hint of the lawful owners asking this to be done. Perhaps they are unable?

Or are these all illegally owned items? If so, charges are presumably in order. Does PA law state that if say, anything illegal is found in a home, then all firearms are taken? Or have the owners simply been found mentally unfit? An ambulance company is a source.

The feel of the whole thing is that something very fishy has happened, but at the same time, the police say 'no charges' at this time.

This sentence is what gets me the most: "While most of the items were collectible in nature, extreme precautions were taken in removing the items from the home for safe disposal,". This means to me that while there wasn't a safety reason to take them on the face of it, they will be nonetheless destroyed. Neighborhood people seem to be afraid of the items well enough, but nobody seems to be in shock that authorities swooped in and took things.

There's a lot missing here. Anyone have more info?

[Aguila Blanca]

Welcome to the world of "red flag" laws. Coming soon to a state near you.

[MTT TL]

Gosh, that is a long post, where to begin.

Firstly there is huge misconception out there among a lot of people that just because the police collect evidence and conduct a search means that they have to make an arrest or bring charges, either right away or at some time in the future. They may not even press charges even if they have lot of evidence of a crime. Certainly for a felony not committed in their presence the police may do lots of things and take months or years before arresting a person.

There are a lot of reasons for that. Mostly because once a person is arrested the police are now obligated to bring charges or face a civil rights lawsuit. It also sets a timeline for a speedy trial. If they feel there is more to investigate they will keep going until they are confident they have a solid case, unless there is some kind of political pressure or other over riding reason.

Next I am not bomb expert and I can't identify a bomb from a fuzzy, distant, aerial video. I certainly wouldn't make an assumption that because someone, at some point has painted it blue that it is a training round. I imagine the BATFE is better at that than I am. Also I will defer to them on the safe handling and storage of explosives and munitions. I will say in Iraq we certainly did have lots of bombs setting next to each other, for short and long periods of time.

Does PA law state that if say, anything illegal is found in a home, then all firearms are taken? Or have the owners simply been found mentally unfit?

If he is prohibited person, such as felon or some other reason than yes. The news video said he was undergoing evaluation. Truthfully they are not allowed to say exactly what is going on with his mental health. So there is no telling until it comes out in court.

This sentence is what gets me the most: "While most of the items were collectible in nature, extreme precautions were taken in removing the items from the home for safe disposal,". This means to me that while there wasn't a safety reason to take them on the face of it, they will be nonetheless destroyed.

I think you have it all backwards. They were using caution to remove the items because they were not sure what they were. What happens next is not known. I think it would depend on what they items actually are. Until that is known we won't know what happens.

Most of those rifles looked like old milsurp rifles. Those are collectible. Therefore most of the items were collectible. How we jump from that to having them all destroyed is something I don't get.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

What is indisputable is that the police stacked collectible rifles like cordwood in the back of a van, undoubtedly damaging them and destroying value. They made no effort whatsoever to protect them from damage. So if he is cleared to get the weapons back it will be a collection reduced in value.

[Chris_B]

Typing for five minutes doesn't bother me.

Next I am not bomb expert and I can't identify a bomb from a fuzzy, distant, aerial video. I certainly wouldn't make an assumption that because someone, at some point has painted it blue that it is a training round. I imagine the BATFE is better at that than I am. Also I will defer to them on the safe handling and storage of explosives and munitions. I will say in Iraq we certainly did have lots of bombs setting next to each other, for short and long periods of time.

Luickily nobody has asked you to ID them

I can actually add a bit to this although I am hardly expert myself. From my experience, not as a bomb tech but from supporting them directly, both first responder and US and foreign military. In a residential neighborhood, an explosive device would not be assumed to by anything but live, armed, and deadly. This means handled in a way which would differ from storage of known live war-shot ordnance that is functioning properly at a contemporary US military base. For one thing the fuzes would be known as to location and possible installation in the ordnance, at the base. The status of 'safe' at the base is necessarily different due to protocols and the status of the military location versus a porch in a residential neighborhood in the US.

Verbally I have been told by state PD bomb techs that they would not place one unknown explosive device next to another.

I also did not state that anything was inert. I stated some were blue and some were not. However, the size of the ordnance is suggestive. I have picked up inert 90mm mortar bombs (weighted so that my company's EOD robots could pick them up during trials for the military), and it's a pretty heavy thing, and nowhere near the size of some of the ordnance. Strong cops and ATF agents maybe.

Similarly I did not state that these were any specific bombs. I used the word "similar". Thank you for stating that you'd allow an expert to ID them better, though, as you and I both admit were don't specifically know. I'd rely on an actual expert myself, but similarity is a thing we can all make observations on.

I think you have it all backwards. They were using caution to remove the items because they were not sure what they were. What happens next is not known. I think it would depend on what they items actually are. Until that is known we won't know what happens.

That's interesting. Certainly they can ID a rifle. Perhaps you have misunderstood. The statement "While most of the items were collectible in nature, extreme precautions were taken in removing the items from the home for safe disposal," is interpreted by me as follows:

The use of "While" to begin the statement becomes key. It recognizes that something may be in excess of necessary requirements. Recognizing that "most of the items were collectible in nature" is a further sign that something needs to be clarified because actions in excess of necessary requirements could be assumed otherwise. But then we have this: "extreme precautions" are admitted, and they were "removing the items from the home for safe disposal". "Extreme" is not "normal procedure" to me. Coupled with the fact that, as we both saw, bolt action rifles were also removed, and the "items" were cited as being "removed for disposal". "Disposal" here means potentially anything that was removed, and the statement quoted includes the items of collectible nature in the same sentence as disposal.

This doesn't insert into your mind that something out of the ordinary was done? The verbiage seems to beg the question.

[DaleA]

Typing for five minutes doesn't bother me.

Well, doesn’t bother me either but between looking stuff up and checking facts and reading stuff over to correct my mistakes…well this paragraph right here is verging on that amount of time.

Thank you for taking your time to write your post and thank you for breaking it up into logical paragraphs so that it was easier to read.

The OMG(!!!) was certainly in play here when the ABC news person breathlessly told us the man was “stockpiling weapons IN HIS HOME!!!” (I’m certain none of us keep our weapons in our HOMES for heaven sakes. That’s where we LIVE. We all keep our weapons safe at…???) For heaven sakes the man had a small ARSENAL of weapons…everything from rifles to bombs!!! “Enough weapons to carry out a small scale WAR.” (Well so much for the anti argument that we would be able stand up to the Army if push came to shove...this ONE individual had enough firepower to carry out a small scale war.)

The man’s neighbors identified “rifles, machine guns, mortars, bombs and heavy explosives”!!! And if you can’t trust hoplophile neighbors to identify this stuff then who can you trust?

As usual it’s left to our imagination as to how many people the man COULD have killed with all those rifles. (Hint: about as many as he could have with ONE properly functioning rifle but let’s not let any common sense limit our shock and horror.)

Also, I’d be interested in what the inside of his house looked like after they were done removing the items.

Was it just as he left it minus the items?

Or were drawers left out, their contents strewn around the house, mattresses off the beds, storage boxes left open etc., etc. etc.

I’ve mentioned this before, when the Red Flag Gun Confiscation squad comes to your house are they going to take you at your word that the lever action 30-30 rifle you’re handing over is your one and only firearm or are they going to tear your house apart looking in every place a Ruger LCP could conceivably be concealed? Please note: there are a LOT of places a little gun like that could be concealed.

As somebody else here said, Red Flag Gun Confiscation Laws, (probably) coming to a place near you soon!!!

[MTT TL]

This doesn't insert into your mind that something out of the ordinary was done? The verbiage seems to beg the question.

Maybe, but few cops have ever been excused of being well spoken. You might be reading too much in to it, and certainly we don't know what we don't know.

Verbally I have been told by state PD bomb techs that they would not place one unknown explosive device next to another.

Sure, but our EOD did it every day with IEDs that we found, neighborhoods and all. A lot of the IEDs were old ordinance that had been repurposed. Surprising amounts of them too. I don't know what their (ATF) procedures are and I am betting they won't tell me if I asked. But hey it is the internet and if some police dude told you he wouldn't do it that way just go with it.

What is indisputable is that the police stacked collectible rifles like cordwood in the back of a van, undoubtedly damaging them and destroying value.

More than likely. Although if they were already beat up old Mosins a few more dings won't make a penny worth of difference in valuation.

[zxcvbob]

Welcome to the world of "red flag" laws. Coming soon to a state near you.

I read on another gun forum that Pennsylvania doesn't have a "red flag" law (yet.) If so what was the legal basis for stealing this man's WWII weapons collection?

More than likely. Although if they were already beat up old Mosins a few more dings won't make a penny worth of difference in valuation.

They had value to him.

He should probably disown those relatives.

[natman]

Since there is no evidence of the owner's psychological state, it's hard to say if this was justified.

The only thing that's questionable is the state of the bombs. They are probably deactivated and legal, but it's impossible to tell.

Otherwise it's the same old hysteria, where a small collection becomes an "arsenal" and more than a couple of boxes of ammo makes the owner a danger to the community.

At least in the eyes of the media.

[Ricekila]

Thought policing has arrived --

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

I read on another gun forum that Pennsylvania doesn't have a "red flag" law (yet.) If so what was the legal basis for stealing this man's WWII weapons collection?

The new trend to "red flag laws" is, IMHO, nothing more than a way of evading due process in the holy name of "doing something." Pennsylvania has a law that allows for emergency mental examinations, as I believe every state had since well before the advent of these so-called red flag laws. My mother's sister was the subject of such an order 35 or 40 years ago, because the family feared that she was suicidal. I was living out of state at the time so I don't recall any details, but I know it was possible that far back in time.

As to the legality of seizing the guns as part of what Pennsylvania calls an "emergency examination," that may be a function of how the judge wrote the order. Here's a link to the law covering the emergency examination:

https://pacode.com/secure/data/055/c.../s5100.84.html

(c) The determination of whether the standards of clear and present danger are met should always include a consideration of the person’s probable behavior if adequate treatment is not provided on either an emergency or subsequent basis.

(d) The standards of clear and present danger may be met when a person has made a threat of harm to self or others; has made a threat to commit suicide; or has made a threat to commit an act of mutilation and has committed acts in furtherance of any such threats.

However, the article doesn't make any mention of either the elderly man or is wife being taken in for an emergency examination, so it doesn't appear that there's any allegation that either of them met the legal standard for being an imminent danger either to themselves or to others. Furthermore, the law on emergency examinations doesn't appear to offer any basis or justification for confiscating so much as a dull butter knife from the examinee. Consequently, I join in the puzzlement of what possible legal justification there could be for the police to have seized the weapons.

I'm also bothered by the use of the term "disposal." That suggests to me "destruction," and while that may actually refer only to the bombs and such, it could also refer to the rifles and ammunition. And, if the weapons were all legal and the ordnance was inert and legal, seizure and destruction would constitute theft under color of law. I wonder if the police even had a search warrant, or if they either relied on the family members who were "helping" for permission (which may not have been legal), of if they browbeat the elderly couple into granting permission for the police to come in and "look at" the guns.

When I first encountered this thread, my immediate reaction was to view it as an early example of a red flag law in action. As I read it again and consider the facts at hand (which are, admittedly, few), it doesn't look like anything like a red flag law in action. It's just the cops taking an old man's gun collection away from him.

[Aguila Blanca]

Correction: Here's a television news report on the incident in which the on-site reporter says "he" (presumably the elderly Vietnam veteran) is being checked out at a psych ward.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-fa...165419490.html

[zxcvbob]

If he's at a psych ward, there was no reason at all to take the weapons yet -- he has no access to them. And the police obviously knew the ordinance was inert, otherwise they would have evacuated the neighborhood.

Armed robbery under color of law is the only explanation.

ETA: In addition to writing them all out of his will, he needs to sue the family members who called the police; tell them "the police have qualified immunity, you don't" (I think "the police have qualified immunity but you don't" is potentially a very powerful weapon against the state)

[Frank Ettin]

So folks are assuming that the media report is absolutely accurate in all respects and neither misinterprets anything nor omits any material information (including details the reporter couldn’t reasonably be expected to know). Why?