Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Police Seize Over 300 Guns from Rockford Home

  1. #1
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Thumbs down Police Seize Over 300 Guns from Rockford Home

    Police say a 67 year-old man owns the home and the weapons. He is a legally registered gun owner.

    "At the current time we're taking the firearms for safe keeping as evidence until we can further investigate this," says Deputy Chief Lindmark.


    http://mystateline.com/fulltext-news?nxd_id=185655

  2. #2
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    I hope the owner of this home gets his firearms back in good condition, and I hope he gets a HEEEEYYYUGE settlement check from the lawsuit he's going to win against Rockford PD for this inexcusable theft of his personal property, and the unwarranted searches they are going to perform on the serial numbers of each of these firearms.

    Hit 'em in the wallet.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,611
    Strange happenings - want the rest of the story.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I didn't know Jim could fit 300 guns in his cookie jar.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz_NkXeAnJo&feature=related
    Last edited by Citizen; 08-14-2010 at 01:36 AM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    What crime are they investigating that requires the seizure of the guns? They weren't taken in the burglary, so they are not evidence in that crime. The owner of the guns is not suspected of a crime, so they cannot use that justification.

    Oh, wait, I understand: "Neighbors say even though the weapons may be legal, they still pose a security threat to their neighborhood."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    mid south but not madison , , USA
    Posts
    232

    freedom?

    Where is the PRO BONO attorney? who are his nut job neighbors to say how many guns are too many? who is the state/county/city to tell us the same question above? this is outright criminal reversal. he would have been better off to have stepped outside his house lock the door and say everything is fine. illegal search and seizure of property. there has to be a lawyer out there to take this case should be worth a lot of money.....

    neighbors called early morning. lawyer needs to get the logs and see what happened sounds like he was targeted. if this sticks it is another dagger in the movement of the 2nd amendment. maybe he should move out of illinois to a free state

  7. #7
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    The home was robbed, and the police lawfully gained entry. The house was condemned. Obviously the security of the house had been compromised. They have not been able to contact the homeowner.

    I'm not sure taking possession isn't the correct thing to do, given those circumstances.

    The public announcements of the condition of the home, other than "it's been condemned," and all announcements about what they found in the house, including the weapons found in the home are absolutely unacceptable.

    Running the serial numbers to check if they're stolen is wrong.

    I'm not sure if taking temporary possession of the firearms is wrong, but his right to privacy, and rights as a victim, were definitely violated.
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 08-14-2010 at 03:38 PM.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  8. #8
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    Sounds to me like a gross violation of the IVth Amendment, and maybe even the Vth wherein it says "nor shall private property be taken for public use". Seems to be a lawsuit in the making.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Well the first tipoff is the "legally registered" comment. If you live in a state where you are required to register your firearms, that should raise a big flag as to the general feeling not only among the police, but the populous at large regarding their feelings and thoughts about someone who has a collection of arms.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    From what little information their is, it sounds like this guy may be a hoarder, not a collector.

    Not that I see how that changes anything.
    illegal ≠ immoral legal ≠ moral
    [SIZE=1]"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. "Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." - Thomas Jefferson
    G19 Gen 4; Bersa Thunder 380; Sig Sauer P238; Kel-Tec su-16c

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Officer safety. They had to take them just in case for officer safety. The guy could maybe possibly be mentally deficient or have poor eyesight. When was the last time the firearms were safety tested? They could have been used in criminal activity and there is no way of knowing unless they are confiscated and ballistics tested. They could maybe be used in future criminal activity if they are stolen from his home. There are many good reasons to remove the guns.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Lord Sega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Warrenton, Oregon
    Posts
    317

    Yes and No

    "At the current time we're taking the firearms for safe keeping as evidence until we can further investigate this," says Deputy Chief Lindmark.

    Securing the weapons until the owner returns... they have to since the burglars, and now the entire neighborhood & everyone who reads the paper knows the weapons are there and that the owner is not. The weapons could be easily stolen, thanks to the police & media announcing it to everyone.

    However... "as evidence until we can further investigate this," is wrong. If there's no law broken or there's no suspicion of a crime committed by the homeowner, then the weapons are not evidence.

    There should be no serial numbers run, no ballistics checks, nothing but securing and holding the weapons (due to the house being condemned and unsecure) until the homeowner returns.

    If something is found during a proper investigation (the burglary) that is in itself illegal (ie a bag of pot) then they have the right to seize it and start a separate investigation, but they can't start an investigation on nothing.

    Are they running the serial numbers on every TV & appliance in the home to see if they are stolen? They can't base an investigation on the amount of legal items in the home, who would decide where to draw the line on how many is too many?

    All the homeowner should have to worry about is dealing with his now condemned house and getting professional help on his "hording" problem (not just the weapons, but the whole house issue).

    edit: If there are state laws where he lives dealing with weapons secured in the home, ie must be in a gun safe or trigger locked, then my opinion stated above would be somewhat different. I know some states/cities have laws to this effect.
    Last edited by Lord Sega; 08-15-2010 at 01:27 PM.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Fireproof Gunsafe $800

    FOID Card $10

    Living in a fascist state like Illinois and having 300+ guns in a house you are away from otherwise unsecured:

    $TUPID.
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 08-16-2010 at 10:53 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    was this rockford, england, or rockford germany. this reminds me of the film "the biggest gang in america".
    comdemening a house is just one of the steps the gov. takes to seize the property. surry county, NC and surrounding townships are well known for this ( and usually making a personal profit out of it)

    makes you think what can they do to you!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,509
    I will give the police a little credit, but only a little: they were responding to a reported break-in, the house was full of guns, and the owner was out of state and couldn't be contacted. If the house was in the deplorable trash-filled condition as reported, they also had reason to question his mental state.

    Were they supposed to leave all these guns unsecured for the burglars' next attempt?

    Now, I also have some big problems with the police: first, their intent to run all the serial numbers. Second, the way they piled them in a police van like cordwood, obviously taking absolutely no care to ensure the guns weren't damaged. And finally, I imagine they're going to do everything in their power to not return the guns, or make the guy put up a long and expensive fight, if he can.

  16. #16
    Activist Member DoubleAgentMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    LA County, CA
    Posts
    64
    This is why I will never move back to CA.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    329

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by DoubleAgentMan View Post
    This is why I will never move back to CA.
    HUH? What's are you talked about? Do you know where is the 300 guns?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •