• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Feds seized nearly 1,500 guns in raid

Status
Not open for further replies.

Htown

STOP SHITTING ON MY MOTHER'S HEADSTONE
So, let me get this straight: DHS raided a guy's home, and seizes his entire gun collection even though he didn't break the law? How is this shit legal? I thought it was "Innocent until proven guilty"?

You realize they're allowed to arrest you before you're convicted, right?
 

Axiology

Member
What's funny about this story is that as an alleged gun smuggler this guy would technically be one of those "bad guys with a gun" most gun advocates are always talking about. If this guy sold guns he illegally obtained it's highly likely he would sell to anyone who wanted one, therefore also making it a possibility that he armed someone who could use the gun in a crime.

This is the kind of seizure gun advocates should be all about, but no "The government legally seized this guy's weapons for the good of the public? Outrageous"- Just because a gun seizure took place somewhere in America.
 
What's funny about this story is that as an alleged gun smuggler this guy would technically be one of those "bad guys with a gun" most gun advocates are always talking about. If this guy sold guns he illegally obtained it's highly likely he would sell to anyone who wanted one, therefore also making it a possibility that he armed someone who could use the gun in a crime.

This is the kind of seizure gun advocates should be all about, but no "The government legally seized this guy's weapons for the good of the public? Outrageous"- Just because a gun seizure took place somewhere in America.

Exactly. Funny to see these lawbidin responsible gun owners sticking up for what looks like a source of illegal guns. And for people that claim to love the constitution so much they sure know fuck all about the law.
 
What's funny about this story is that as an alleged gun smuggler this guy would technically be one of those "bad guys with a gun" most gun advocates are always talking about. If this guy sold guns he illegally obtained it's highly likely he would sell to anyone who wanted one, therefore also making it a possibility that he armed someone who could use the gun in a crime.

This is the kind of seizure gun advocates should be all about, but no "The government legally seized this guy's weapons for the good of the public? Outrageous"- Just because a gun seizure took place somewhere in America.

Here's a nice Daily Show clip where Stewart shows how much the NRA and Republicans don't want to enforce gun laws and have set it up to where the ATF has like no fucking power to actually regulate guns. You can skip to the 2:30 mark if you don't have the full 6 minutes to spare.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom

EDIT: Blah, it cuts off before the segment is done for some stupid reason. Here's the second part where it really gets good:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf

This shit really blows my mind.
 

Bodacious

Banned
Here's a not well known fact: Back in the 60s, blacks had fought for the right to own and possess guns in the streets feeling they had to protect themselves from the police.

Then, the NRA supported Ronald Reagan signing the 1967 Mulford Act restricting people from carrying Firearms.



Well, blacks and everyone else already had that right. They just chose to exercise it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN3JknelTdE


So your point is that gun control in the United States has a history of racist underpinnings? Yes, this is true.

As for the NRA, their policies & platform changed dramatically in the in late 70's with a changing of the guard that pushed the old dudes out of the leadership.

Here's an interesting read about that.

It's fine if you think they're the devil now for their zealous defense of 2nd amendment rights, but pointing back to their support for the Mulford Act in 1967 is no more fair than pointing out that it was Democrats who mostly filibustered and resisted anti-lynching laws and the civil rights act. That was then. This is now.
 

jason10mm

Gold Member
The article is poorly researched, but it sounds to me like this guy was in possession of lots of foreign made firearms that he failed to put an importer serial number on. Which, if he had no intention of ever reselling them, may not be illegal, I don't know.

Or he is a gun runner.

But i have a feeling he is just an avid collector, probably hitting up lots of estate sales, an demonstrates poor judgement with how he acquires his lots.
 
Here's a nice Daily Show clip where Stewart shows how much the NRA and Republicans don't want to enforce gun laws and have set it up to where the ATF has like no fucking power to actually regulate guns. You can skip to the 2:30 mark if you don't have the full 6 minutes to spare.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom

EDIT: Blah, it cuts off before the segment is done for some stupid reason. Here's the second part where it really gets good:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf

This shit really blows my mind.

And everyone wonders why the ban is the only option. The clusterfucked web of legal loopholes extends through decades of NRA lobbying and congressional buyoffs, such that it's nearly impossible to do any enforcement or even repeal said ridiculous amendments.
 

DarthWoo

I'm glad Grandpa porked a Chinese Muslim
What's funny about this story is that as an alleged gun smuggler this guy would technically be one of those "bad guys with a gun" most gun advocates are always talking about. If this guy sold guns he illegally obtained it's highly likely he would sell to anyone who wanted one, therefore also making it a possibility that he armed someone who could use the gun in a crime.

This is the kind of seizure gun advocates should be all about, but no "The government legally seized this guy's weapons for the good of the public? Outrageous"- Just because a gun seizure took place somewhere in America.

Try to wrap your mind around the fact that the NRA has blocked appointments for the ATF director post (and that the ATF hasn't had a permanent director since 2006, when the GOP inserted mandatory Senate confirmation at the NRA's behest) because the appointee has dared to do something so bold as revoking the licenses of dealers that sold guns illegally.
 
I'm sorry, but how completely detached from reality do you have to be to ask things like "how can they infringe on the freedom of this poor man with 1500 unmarked guns in his house?"
 

Turgenev

Banned
Feds seized nearly 1,500 guns in raid



So, let me get this straight: DHS raided a guy's home, and seizes his entire gun collection even though he didn't break the law? How is this shit legal? I thought it was "Innocent until proven guilty"?

Well, if they have evidence of him smuggling guns or evading taxes on them then I see no problem with this. They're simply investigating into the possible crimes. However if the only reason they searched is house is because he had a ton of guns then I'm sure he could try and sue them under the 5th amendment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom