Anybody in the Kirkland area know more about this?

imported post

I posted thishttp://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/29937.html in theNews& Political Alertssection and so far nothing useful has come in.

Any of you folks in WA heard about it or know more than what's in the article? I'm puzzling over why the guy stopped being a nutcase and forgot to pay his storage unit rental.

Anyone? Anyone? Beuller?

stay safe.

skidmark
* edited to correct section it was posted in.

imported post

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=23041&forum_id=55&highlight=storage+unit

Crazy, innut?

imported post

Struve had rented the storage unit under a false name, in order to keep his identity hidden. I don't know why he stopped paying on the unit, but that's what led to his arrest. I saw a lot of his "items" and about 97% of the guns were full auto or select fire and were either stolen from the Military or procured through illegal means. Then he had numerous explosives incuding several types of grenades, rockets, dynamite, and c4.

None of these items were legally owned by Struve. Personally I believe that Struve was not a bad guy with evil intentions (he had no criminal record), but his "paranoia"compelled him to collect items that he could not legally own.

imported post

What's interesting is that, moving up here, I rented a storage unit in the same place. In big, bright red letters they had a "no firearms are allowed to be stored here." When I asked about it, because my pistol was somewhere in the boxes and boxes of stuff I had packed, the response was "sorry, you'll have to dig it out, can't keep it here. Ended up leaving it with a friend for my month in Europe.

I wonder if they're more proactive about enforcing that now, since it obviously didn't stop this guy.

imported post

I think it's absurd that they can sentence this guy when he hasn't hurt anyone.

imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:

I think it's absurd that they can sentence this guy when he hasn't hurt anyone.

Click to expand...

Uhhh . . . what?

So it's okay to drink and drive, as long as you don't get into an accident and hurt someone?

And it's okay to break any other law, as long as nobody gets hurt?

As gun owners, we should support prosecution of those that break the law; otherwise, we all get hurt. This news story alone has probably caused many of the ignorant to think that "gun owners" all have a collection of illegal weapons like those from the storage unit.

We need to support punishment of those that break the law. Separately, if we disagree with a particular law then we need to work to change it.

imported post

So whatever the law says we should support it? If I don't like a law I try to change it and while doing it I don't follow it. I don't see how having a machine gun locked in my closet is dangerous towards others. Your only reason for wanting this guy prosecuted is because the Government told you to and your afraid that the people who blindly believe what others tell them will view all of us as crazy? That's a similar view to those that don't like us OCing because we'll make all gun owners look crazy.

imported post

Mad Pick wrote:

FunkTrooper wrote:

I think it's absurd that they can sentence this guy when he hasn't hurt anyone.

Click to expand...

And it's okay to break any other law, as long as nobody gets hurt?

Click to expand...

Ask yourself this if it doesn't hurt anyone why on earth should there be a law?

imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:

Mad Pick wrote:

FunkTrooper wrote:

I think it's absurd that they can sentence this guy when he hasn't hurt anyone.

Click to expand...

And it's okay to break any other law, as long as nobody gets hurt?

Click to expand...

Ask yourself this if it doesn't hurt anyone why on earth should there be a law?

Click to expand...

If I come to your house, threaten to shoot your kids, rape your wife, and burn down the building, I have committed no harm, right? I mean, I didn't actually shoot your kids, rape your wife, or burn down your house - no harm no foul?

No, that's assault - a threat of force or violence that is credible and believable to the honest person. In the same way, if someone points a gun at you, but hasn't shot you, you shoot back. Threat of deadly force is reason for self defense, though you are the only one who is actually "hurting anyone."

Laws such as that exist because a reasonable person would conclude that given the facts of a situation, there is an immediate and present danger to those around you. Driving drunk (note, I'm not a fan of the .08 standard, .12 or .10 is more realistic for when you've crossed that line, in my opinion, but that's not what others in our society have voted) is, in effect, committing assault on every person you pass. A reasonable person, knowing the facts of your impaired ability to drive, would conclude you present immediate and real danger to those around you.

imported post

Quite correct Tawnos but I agree with you, violent threats do harm people and to the same extent a severely impaired driver. My only point is that this guy would be prosecuted and taken away from his family because of items in a storage facility, there is no threat there. If they illegalize guns tomorrow we could all be arrested for having pistols locked in a safe no matter if we are dangerous or not.

imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:

I think it's absurd that they can sentence this guy when he hasn't hurt anyone.

Click to expand...

I agree with you FunkTrooper. As long as he hasn't infringed upon anybody else's liberties or safety, I don't recognize a crime here, other than stealing government property. If he has no history of criminal activity, then I don't see the amassing of weapons in and of itself as criminal. I have the same view on open carry. Simply carrying a pistol does not warrent alarm for the safety of others.

EDIT*

I could also see charges on improper storage of the arsenal on the grounds that it could pose a great threat to others if stolen and it wasn't secured other than by the padlock on the storage unit.

imported post

Dave The Welder wrote:

FunkTrooper wrote:

I think it's absurd that they can sentence this guy when he hasn't hurt anyone.

Click to expand...

I agree with you FunkTrooper. As long as he hasn't infringed upon anybody else's liberties or safety, I don't recognize a crime here, other than stealing government property. If he has no history of criminal activity, then I don't see the amassing of weapons in and of itself as criminal. I have the same view on open carry. Simply carrying a pistol does not warrant alarm for the safety of others.

EDIT*

I could also see charges on improper storage of the arsenal on the grounds that it could pose a great threat to others if stolen and it wasn't secured other than by the padlock on the storage unit.

Click to expand...

Even though my original post there was a bit "jesty", i mostly agree with you here too. I admit that i find the explosives part a bit awkward, and not sure where i stand on the large scale explosive munitions (I know i could handle and use them safely [assuming they were legal to own], but some others i would worry about). Personally, i feel hisintentions there were really no more or less paranoia driven than half of the US of that time. Remember the Nuclear bomb propaganda posters, and how they actually taught kids in school to flip their desks towards the blast, don't look at the light... on and on.... how was this generation supposed to feel or act / react. My mom used to tell me about that stuff from when she was a kid, and i was like "holy craps mom.." . So, If the government and president toldus that Zombies where probably gonna come in a few years, and taught my kids Zombie drills in school, hell, i'd get ready too right? Some people built shelters, some bought guns and ammo. I personally was glad they at least reducedthe sentenceallot as most of his efforts seemed patriotic, he wanted to fight the bad guys that the government had painted for him. If i tell my kid there are monsters under the bed, teach him reactive / defensive drills, and then one night find my now adult son had been sleeping with a claymore until he got old enough to realise it was a lil bit unrealistic.... well, who's fault is that?? So am i now to punish him or call him crazy or paranoid when i find the claymore in his closet? I think at some point the government needs to take some responsibility here too, and realise that he was simply functioning off of their teachings.

... it's an all in all sad situation for a guy who seems to have had patriotic intent.

.. BUT...yes +1 on improper storage and security on said arsenal, would also be why i am not always sure where i stand on the explosives and large munitions topic.

:?Bat

imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:

Quite correct Tawnos but I agree with you, violent threats do harm people and to the same extent a severely impaired driver. My only point is that this guy would be prosecuted and taken away from his family because of items in a storage facility, there is no threat there. If they illegalize guns tomorrow we could all be arrested for having pistols locked in a safe no matter if we are dangerous or not.

Click to expand...

There was a threat, though. He knowingly and willingly stole and stored munitions and explosives, some (pin pulled grenade) that were in unstable condition. I think that the sentence fits the crime - namely, he was charged for improper storage of explosives, and everything else was dropped. Yeah, it sucks for him to be locked away for a bit, but the punishment is, in my opinion, made in good legal faith.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

There was a threat, though. He knowingly and willingly stole and stored munitions and explosives, some (pin pulled grenade) that were in unstable condition. I think that the sentence fits the crime - namely, he was charged for improper storage of explosives, and everything else was dropped. Yeah, it sucks for him to be locked away for a bit, but the punishment is, in my opinion, made in good legal faith.

Click to expand...

He "knowingly" stored munitions and explosives that were "unstable"?There was a threat? Your assuming much.

imported post

If I come to your house, threaten to shoot your kids, rape your wife, and burn down the building, I have committed no harm, right? I mean, I didn't actually shoot your kids, rape your wife, or burn down your house - no harm no foul?

Click to expand...

See, that's what the hand grenades and full auto weapons are for...

:lol:

imported post

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

There was a threat, though. He knowingly and willingly stole and stored munitions and explosives, some (pin pulled grenade) that were in unstable condition. I think that the sentence fits the crime - namely, he was charged for improper storage of explosives, and everything else was dropped. Yeah, it sucks for him to be locked away for a bit, but the punishment is, in my opinion, made in good legal faith.

Click to expand...

He "knowingly" stored munitions and explosives that were "unstable"?There was a threat? Your assuming much.

Click to expand...

I get my own assuming now? Awesome! You're the greatest!

Note the way I stated it: "he knowingly and willingly stored munitions and explosives," - this is a fact. He's stated "yeah, I collected and stored all these things. - ", some (pin pulled grenade) that were in unstable condition." Another fact, some of what he stored was unstable and unsafe.

The threat was that, should that grenade have been live and capable of exploding, it endangered whoever may have been close enough to the locker. Had he been storing detcord as well as the C4, there is potential for a surprisingly large explosion (nade can set off detcord can set off C4).

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

Note the way I stated it: "he knowingly and willingly stored munitions and explosives," - this is a fact. He's stated "yeah, I collected and stored all these things. - ", some (pin pulled grenade) that were in unstable condition." Another fact, some of what he stored was unstable and unsafe.

The threat was that, should that grenade have been live and capable of exploding, it endangered whoever may have been close enough to the locker. Had he been storing detcord as well as the C4, there is potential for a surprisingly large explosion (nade can set off detcord can set off C4).

Click to expand...

I agree, improperly storing explosives is like driving drunk. Yes, you may not hurt anyone, but there is a great potential there that you will hurt someone, therefore, there is a crime.