User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 11:05:50 AM EDT
[#1]
and so it begins....
be smart out there people.. this is their plan. One by one.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 12:23:16 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and so it begins.... be smart out there people.. this is their plan. One by one.. GD will laugh, one by one, along with the arrests. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 12:47:02 PM EDT
[#3]
I question how do they know if it was registered or not.
Most of the forms aren't even back yet from the state. Do they have their own list (to prosecute us) but can't get ours back to us in a timely manner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 1:29:02 PM EDT
[#4]
they probably asked him if they were registered and he said, "i didnt know i had to"....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 1:32:37 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
they probably asked him if they were registered and he said, "i didnt know i had to".... I'd bet you're right. What a shame. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 2:15:02 PM EDT
[#6]
Hope it's a preban and he's still waiting for his mag paperwork. Maybe he's just playing dumb.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 2:19:32 PM EDT
[#7]
Not surprising that the cops in Milford were the first.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 2:31:35 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not surprising that the cops in Milford were the first. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 3:06:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hope it's a preban and he's still waiting for his mag paperwork. Maybe he's just playing dumb. if this was the case, he would have told the officers this, why try to get a felon.. i wouldnt play mr stubborn/cool guy/militia if i had legally gone through the hoops to be legal. its not worth the class D felon. when i renew my HVAC licensing it asks if i had been convicted of a felon within the last year. so its not worth my job/career either. if he told the officers that he had registered his AW, and mags, im sure they would have let it go and made him report the paper work when it came in, or either the cops seized his illegal objects until he can prove he did register them to be legal. my edu-ma-cated guess... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 3:07:57 PM EDT
[#10]
I'd like to hear the full story. 5.56 on a squirrel in the burbs is pretty hardcore. I'd be interested to know if its a dense neighborhood or something. It would seem he did not exercise any brain power.
Assuming Im wrong, it may be time to rally the troops. If I'm right, its gonna be a hard fight to pick up for him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 3:29:10 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd like to hear the full story. 5.56 on a squirrel in the burbs is pretty hardcore. I'd be interested to know if its a dense neighborhood or something. It would seem he did not exercise any brain power. Assuming Im wrong, it may be time to rally the troops. If I'm right, its gonna be a hard fight to pick up for him. Yeah....didn't really exercise much of anything except his finger. Guess he really hated those squirrels. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 3:40:05 PM EDT
[#12]
Where does it say he shot 556 at a squirrel? He's 65. He shot with a 22lr. I'll put money on it. His actions made a probable cause garunteed, which led a search of his home.
He was illegally hubting on property that doesn't meet land requirements. 500ft from dwellings. Cops are doing all they can to be able to search property Fucking pigs |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 3:45:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where does it say he shot 556 at a squirrel? He's 65. He shot with a 22lr. I'll put money on it. His actions made a probable cause garunteed, which led a search of his home. He was illegally hubting on property that doesn't meet land requirements. 500ft from dwellings. Cops are doing all they can to be able to search property Fucking pigs I don't think they can obtain a warrant to search his home based on actions that took place outside. If that were the case the police would be searching the homes of every person arrested that had been pulled over and found drugs in their cars. The police have either be able to visually see something inside a home or have been provided with reliable information that something illegal was in the house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 3:47:56 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think they can obtain a warrant to search his home based on actions that took place outside. If that were the case the police would be searching the homes of every person arrested that had been pulled over and found drugs in their cars. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Where does it say he shot 556 at a squirrel? He's 65. He shot with a 22lr. I'll put money on it. His actions made a probable cause garunteed, which led a search of his home. He was illegally hubting on property that doesn't meet land requirements. 500ft from dwellings. Cops are doing all they can to be able to search property Fucking pigs I don't think they can obtain a warrant to search his home based on actions that took place outside. If that were the case the police would be searching the homes of every person arrested that had been pulled over and found drugs in their cars. He was at his home. They can search it. Like if you had drugs in your car. They can search your car...same difference |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 3:58:50 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He was at his home. They can search it. Like if you had drugs in your car. They can search your car...same difference Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where does it say he shot 556 at a squirrel? He's 65. He shot with a 22lr. I'll put money on it. His actions made a probable cause garunteed, which led a search of his home. He was illegally hubting on property that doesn't meet land requirements. 500ft from dwellings. Cops are doing all they can to be able to search property Fucking pigs I don't think they can obtain a warrant to search his home based on actions that took place outside. If that were the case the police would be searching the homes of every person arrested that had been pulled over and found drugs in their cars. He was at his home. They can search it. Like if you had drugs in your car. They can search your car...same difference (about the 5.56) I read it in the GD thread, its probably mis-information. My bad. Im almost certain the only way they could have searched his home on the spot is if he gave them consent or confessed. Like ewet said, if it took place outside, theres no premise to enter the home. Yeah, if you're doing drugs in your car, they can search your car. But thats where it stops, unless there is suspicion of dealing etc, then they can take the proper routes to attain a search warrant of your home - which could take a day or two, its almost never instant. He must have confessed or given consent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 4:32:21 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He was at his home. They can search it. Like if you had drugs in your car. They can search your car...same difference Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where does it say he shot 556 at a squirrel? He's 65. He shot with a 22lr. I'll put money on it. His actions made a probable cause garunteed, which led a search of his home. He was illegally hubting on property that doesn't meet land requirements. 500ft from dwellings. Cops are doing all they can to be able to search property Fucking pigs I don't think they can obtain a warrant to search his home based on actions that took place outside. If that were the case the police would be searching the homes of every person arrested that had been pulled over and found drugs in their cars. He was at his home. They can search it. Like if you had drugs in your car. They can search your car...same difference Incorrect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 4:33:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
(about the 5.56) I read it in the GD thread, its probably mis-information. My bad. Im almost certain the only way they could have searched his home on the spot is if he gave them consent or confessed. Like ewet said, if it took place outside, theres no premise to enter the home. Yeah, if you're doing drugs in your car, they can search your car. But thats where it stops, unless there is suspicion of dealing etc, then they can take the proper routes to attain a search warrant of your home - which could take a day or two, its almost never instant. He must have confessed or given consent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where does it say he shot 556 at a squirrel? He's 65. He shot with a 22lr. I'll put money on it. His actions made a probable cause garunteed, which led a search of his home. He was illegally hubting on property that doesn't meet land requirements. 500ft from dwellings. Cops are doing all they can to be able to search property Fucking pigs I don't think they can obtain a warrant to search his home based on actions that took place outside. If that were the case the police would be searching the homes of every person arrested that had been pulled over and found drugs in their cars. He was at his home. They can search it. Like if you had drugs in your car. They can search your car...same difference (about the 5.56) I read it in the GD thread, its probably mis-information. My bad. Im almost certain the only way they could have searched his home on the spot is if he gave them consent or confessed. Like ewet said, if it took place outside, theres no premise to enter the home. Yeah, if you're doing drugs in your car, they can search your car. But thats where it stops, unless there is suspicion of dealing etc, then they can take the proper routes to attain a search warrant of your home - which could take a day or two, its almost never instant. He must have confessed or given consent. This is correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 5:02:03 PM EDT
[#18]
Yeah, if you're doing drugs in your car, they can search your car. But thats where it stops, unless there is suspicion of dealing etc, then they can take the proper routes to attain a search warrant of your home - which could take a day or two, its almost never instant. He must have confessed or given consent. with all the "gun" incidents these days, obtaining a warrant is probably closer to "instant" than a "day or two". Either given consent or warrant, can't see that a confession alone would give them the right to enter the house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 5:08:17 PM EDT
[#19]
It's a non AR 22lr that meets the definition. Ruger 10/22 with a 25rd mag probably.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 5:09:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
with all the "gun" incidents these days, obtaining a warrant is probably closer to "instant" than a "day or two". Either given consent or warrant, can't see that a confession alone would give them the right to enter the house. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, if you're doing drugs in your car, they can search your car. But thats where it stops, unless there is suspicion of dealing etc, then they can take the proper routes to attain a search warrant of your home - which could take a day or two, its almost never instant. He must have confessed or given consent. with all the "gun" incidents these days, obtaining a warrant is probably closer to "instant" than a "day or two". Either given consent or warrant, can't see that a confession alone would give them the right to enter the house. Hey...if the police asked him if they could look inside his home and he said sure...go ahead...well he is SOL. That is the ONLY way the police can enter without a warrant unless they visibly viewed something illegal thru a window or an open door. Even if the police saw thru an open door an AW sitting on a coffee table...they still could not enter. No evidence it was unregistered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 5:11:10 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
with all the "gun" incidents these days, obtaining a warrant is probably closer to "instant" than a "day or two". Either given consent or warrant, can't see that a confession alone would give them the right to enter the house. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, if you're doing drugs in your car, they can search your car. But thats where it stops, unless there is suspicion of dealing etc, then they can take the proper routes to attain a search warrant of your home - which could take a day or two, its almost never instant. He must have confessed or given consent. with all the "gun" incidents these days, obtaining a warrant is probably closer to "instant" than a "day or two". Either given consent or warrant, can't see that a confession alone would give them the right to enter the house. It depends on the availability of the issuing authority. Generally, judges hand down search warrants. If the judge is busy, or its after hours, they're SOL until he is available to confirm and/or sign the warrant for search. Confession and consent allow bypass of all that. "Yes, officer, I shot a squirrel. Sure, come on in, my guns are right back here." Thats all they need, otherwise, they're waiting for a warrant. Hence the saying, "don't invite the man into your life". Once they're in, they're in. Anything they see (in plain sight) after that fact is admissible. If a cop enters your home (invited), and is thorough about his job, you will notice they touch nothing. If they want to open a closet or something to have a peek inside, they will ask you first. If they open the closet door without consent and find something illegal, it is inadmissible as evidence as he illegally conducted a search. Thats not to say he won't close the door and pursue a warrant to come back legally. Im speculating, mind you, I clearly don't have the facts yet as they're not available. But, he was also charged for unregistered "AW's" - the state isn't done registering them yet, so its not provable by the state it is in fact un-registered. He must have inadvertently confessed that information, allowing that charge to come down on him. Otherwise, he could have just said, "No, I sent in my paperwork I just haven't got anything back yet." And the po would have been SOL. There was a document released by some agency saying it was legal to bring your AR's etc to the range still, even though the paperwork hasn't come back yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 5:15:48 PM EDT
[#22]
Goddamn people have to smarten up.
Never talk to the police anymore. Ever. Be polite but never, ever, ever tell them anything. Consent to no searches. Ever. 10 to 1 he talked himself right into deep shit when they probably had nothing but a shot's fired complaint. Make sure all your friends and family watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 5:16:07 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a non AR 22lr that meets the definition. Ruger 10/22 with a 25rd mag probably. Having a 25rnd mag in it does not constitute it being an AW, does it? Maybe un-registered mags, but that doesn't make it an AW. (I dont think) Unless of course it had collapsible stock/flashhider etc, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 5:17:15 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Goddamn people have to smarten up. Never talk to the police anymore. Ever. Be polite but never, ever, ever tell them anything. Consent to no searches. Ever. 10 to 1 he talked himself right into deep shit when they probably had nothing but a shot's fired complaint. Make sure all your friends and family watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 5:21:12 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Goddamn people have to smarten up. Never talk to the police anymore. Ever. Be polite but never, ever, ever tell them anything. Consent to no searches. Ever. 10 to 1 he talked himself right into deep shit when they probably had nothing but a shot's fired complaint. Make sure all your friends and family watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Yep. Yep. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 6:19:26 PM EDT
[#26]
Wha? Where is the rally and coinciding jailbreak operation?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 7:26:48 PM EDT
[#27]
If he consented to a search, they can search...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 9:38:29 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Incorrect. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where does it say he shot 556 at a squirrel? He's 65. He shot with a 22lr. I'll put money on it. His actions made a probable cause garunteed, which led a search of his home. He was illegally hubting on property that doesn't meet land requirements. 500ft from dwellings. Cops are doing all they can to be able to search property Fucking pigs I don't think they can obtain a warrant to search his home based on actions that took place outside. If that were the case the police would be searching the homes of every person arrested that had been pulled over and found drugs in their cars. He was at his home. They can search it. Like if you had drugs in your car. They can search your car...same difference Incorrect. Explain yourself. If you have drugs on you, they have probable cause to search your vehicle. No warrant needed. Same goes with your home in his situation. All you need is probable cause with the new terrorist act passed years ago and the way laws are today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 1:20:03 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Explain yourself. If you have drugs on you, they have probable cause to search your vehicle. No warrant needed. Same goes with your home in his situation. All you need is probable cause with the new terrorist act passed years ago and the way laws are today. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where does it say he shot 556 at a squirrel? He's 65. He shot with a 22lr. I'll put money on it. His actions made a probable cause garunteed, which led a search of his home. He was illegally hubting on property that doesn't meet land requirements. 500ft from dwellings. Cops are doing all they can to be able to search property Fucking pigs I don't think they can obtain a warrant to search his home based on actions that took place outside. If that were the case the police would be searching the homes of every person arrested that had been pulled over and found drugs in their cars. He was at his home. They can search it. Like if you had drugs in your car. They can search your car...same difference Incorrect. Explain yourself. If you have drugs on you, they have probable cause to search your vehicle. No warrant needed. Same goes with your home in his situation. All you need is probable cause with the new terrorist act passed years ago and the way laws are today. Only if they took you out of your vehicle in the first place. I explained it pretty well in my other post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 1:47:48 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Goddamn people have to smarten up. Never talk to the police anymore. Ever. Be polite but never, ever, ever tell them anything. Consent to no searches. Ever. 10 to 1 he talked himself right into deep shit when they probably had nothing but a shot's fired complaint. Make sure all your friends and family watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Very good video. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 3:24:59 AM EDT
[#31]
Obviously a lot we don't know about what happened. If the street address is correct where it took place (258 Housatonic Dr) then I'd question why the guy was shooting a .22 outdoors in the first place in that neighborhood with houses fairly close by (perhaps under the 500 foot hunting rule). He probably could have gotten away with using an air gun to dispatch the tree rats (squirrels) and no one would have given it a second thought.
Like others have said it sounds like he talked himself into more charges. I assume if the guy didn't let the police into his house voluntarily (stupid on his part if he did) then the police used Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms and ammunition from person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others to confiscate the rest of his firearms/ammo. This appears on the surface to be another example of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It also shows once again that the police don't need to go door to door to confiscate so called AW's/LCM's, they simply wait for some other reason to enter the person's life and then confiscate. This also shows that those who claim police in CT won't enforce the unconstitutional laws are wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 3:28:45 AM EDT
[#32]
I think we need to support him.
Just because he is an idiot, doesn't make him any more of a deserving criminal than any of us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 4:01:09 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think we need to support him. Just because he is an idiot, doesn't make him any more of a deserving criminal than any of us. This^^ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 5:41:31 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think we need to support him. Just because he is an idiot, doesn't make him any more of a deserving criminal than any of us. Some will support him others will not. The problem is where does one draw the line on an idiotic action? Where should we draw the line where poor firearm handling and use constitutes a crime? If what is reported is true the guy capped off a round (or two) in neighborhood with other homes relatively close by. Not sure I want someone popping off rounds at tree rats where I live too easy for the round to go wild and strike a home, car, or person. We may not like it but there is an unlawful discharge of firearms statute and that's one of the violations he was charged with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 5:51:05 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some will support him others will not. The problem is where does one draw the line on an idiotic action? Where should we draw the line where poor firearm handling and use constitutes a crime? If what is reported is true the guy capped off a round (or two) in neighborhood with other homes relatively close by. Not sure I want someone popping off rounds at tree rats where I live too easy for the round to go wild and strike a home, car, or person. We may not like it but there is an unlawful discharge of firearms statute and that's one of the violations he was charged with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think we need to support him. Just because he is an idiot, doesn't make him any more of a deserving criminal than any of us. Some will support him others will not. The problem is where does one draw the line on an idiotic action? Where should we draw the line where poor firearm handling and use constitutes a crime? If what is reported is true the guy capped off a round (or two) in neighborhood with other homes relatively close by. Not sure I want someone popping off rounds at tree rats where I live too easy for the round to go wild and strike a home, car, or person. We may not like it but there is an unlawful discharge of firearms statute and that's one of the violations he was charged with. True...but they also just took a misdemeanor and turned it into a felony because of the style of firearm he owned. This is what we have all been bitch about for a year. He is now a FELON because he owns a firearm . |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 6:15:08 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
True...but they also just took a misdemeanor and turned it into a felony because of the style of firearm he owned. This is what we have all been bitch about for a year. He is now a FELON because he owns a firearm . Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think we need to support him. Just because he is an idiot, doesn't make him any more of a deserving criminal than any of us. Some will support him others will not. The problem is where does one draw the line on an idiotic action? Where should we draw the line where poor firearm handling and use constitutes a crime? If what is reported is true the guy capped off a round (or two) in neighborhood with other homes relatively close by. Not sure I want someone popping off rounds at tree rats where I live too easy for the round to go wild and strike a home, car, or person. We may not like it but there is an unlawful discharge of firearms statute and that's one of the violations he was charged with. True...but they also just took a misdemeanor and turned it into a felony because of the style of firearm he owned. This is what we have all been bitch about for a year. He is now a FELON because he owns a firearm . The way the stupid unconstitutional law is written the guy might get off with a class A misdemeanor for the so called AW and may have the charge for the so called LCM suspended for the first time violation. What people have been bitching about is being busted solely based on having the unregistered AW and LCM. That's not what happened here. This guy violated at least one law (the unlawful discharge) which lead somehow to the police finding and then confiscating his firearms and in the process finding the unregistered AW and LCM's. Should he have his firearms confiscated? That can be debated one way or the other depending on one's views on firearms. Either way the guy showed some questionable decision making skills by supposedly shooting at a tree rat and subsequently had things go from bad to worse because of that questionable decision. What we don't know is how exactly the police discovered the so called AW and LCM. Did the guy tell people he had them? Did the police enter his home to confiscate the one rifle and found the others? Did the police only find the one rifle and asked where the other were if they found additional entries in the state's weapons registry and the guy told them? This does illustrate that if one does have so called AW's and LCM's that they chose not to register to store them separate from those firearms the state does not treat as illegal firearms so if the police do enter one's home and either finds the firearm storage area open or the owner opens it for them that the AW/LCM's are not found in plain site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 6:28:27 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some will support him others will not. The problem is where does one draw the line on an idiotic action? Where should we draw the line where poor firearm handling and use constitutes a crime? If what is reported is true the guy capped off a round (or two) in neighborhood with other homes relatively close by. Not sure I want someone popping off rounds at tree rats where I live too easy for the round to go wild and strike a home, car, or person. We may not like it but there is an unlawful discharge of firearms statute and that's one of the violations he was charged with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think we need to support him. Just because he is an idiot, doesn't make him any more of a deserving criminal than any of us. Some will support him others will not. The problem is where does one draw the line on an idiotic action? Where should we draw the line where poor firearm handling and use constitutes a crime? If what is reported is true the guy capped off a round (or two) in neighborhood with other homes relatively close by. Not sure I want someone popping off rounds at tree rats where I live too easy for the round to go wild and strike a home, car, or person. We may not like it but there is an unlawful discharge of firearms statute and that's one of the violations he was charged with. I am seeing this more and more often to the point where it's become standard procedure. When the police nab someone they don't just charge them with one crime. They charge them with a blizzard of similar sounding crimes. Someone committing a burglary will find themselves charged with burglary AND breaking and entering AND tresspassing AND possession of burglary tools AND possession of stolen goods AND a bunch of other charges I don't care enough to look up. They do this specifically because they plan to drop all these other charges to encourage the perp to accept a plea bargain and admit guilt to the main charge or perhaps a lesser charge. A few years back my house was broken into and a firearm was taken. They caught the guy the following week (a heroin addict, naturally) and by law he should have been whacked with a MANDATORY one year sentence for stealing a gun on top of his other cahrges, but they dropped the mandatory charge in a plea bargain to get him to admit guilt to burglary. If you ever look up a criminals' sentencing history on the CT judicial web site and see the status as DEFERRED, that's what it means. The point is,, I will guarantee to the point where I'll put money on it that the prosecutors will drop the assautl weapon possession charge to get him to plead guilty to reckless endangerment or some other lesser charge. If the AW violation was the only thing they could nab him on I doubt they would have wasted their time on it. Gun control nuts are LIARS. They were LYING back when they claimed mandatory one year sentences for stealing guns would prevent crime and they're LYING even now for for claiming assautl weapon ban will prevent crime. Whenever there's any mention of someone being charged with a gun crime you can safely assume there's a lie hidden in the event somewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 6:45:58 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryExplain yourself. If you have drugs on you, they have probable cause to search your vehicle. No warrant needed. Same goes with your home in his situation. All you need is probable cause with the new terrorist act passed years ago and the way laws are today. You have been misinformed. There is a motor vehicle exception, not a house exception. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 6:52:02 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am seeing this more and more often to the point where it's become standard procedure. When the police nab someone they don't just charge them with one crime. They charge them with a blizzard of similar sounding crimes. Someone committing a burglary will find themselves charged with burglary AND breaking and entering AND tresspassing AND possession of burglary tools AND possession of stolen goods AND a bunch of other charges I don't care enough to look up. They do this specifically because they plan to drop all these other charges to encourage the perp to accept a plea bargain and admit guilt to the main charge or perhaps a lesser charge. A few years back my house was broken into and a firearm was taken. They caught the guy the following week (a heroin addict, naturally) and by law he should have been whacked with a MANDATORY one year sentence for stealing a gun on top of his other cahrges, but they dropped the mandatory charge in a plea bargain to get him to admit guilt to burglary. If you ever look up a criminals' sentencing history on the CT judicial web site and see the status as DEFERRED, that's what it means. The point is,, I will guarantee to the point where I'll put money on it that the prosecutors will drop the assautl weapon possession charge to get him to plead guilty to reckless endangerment or some other lesser charge. If the AW violation was the only thing they could nab him on I doubt they would have wasted their time on it. Gun control nuts are LIARS. They were LYING back when they claimed mandatory one year sentences for stealing guns would prevent crime and they're LYING even now for for claiming assautl weapon ban will prevent crime. Whenever there's any mention of someone being charged with a gun crime you can safely assume there's a lie hidden in the event somewhere. Yep. In this case the guy was charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm for shooting at the squirrel, then cruelty to an animal because the squirrel was shot and I assume got dead, then first-degree reckless endangerment and second-degree breach of peace for good measure (this will help with plea bargaining). Then put the cherry on top with the failure to register an assault rifle and three counts of possessing undeclared large-capacity magazines, All for shooting a squirrel, apparently with a non AW.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 6:55:33 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep. In this case the guy was charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm for shooting at the squirrel, then cruelty to an animal because the squirrel was shot and I assume got dead, then first-degree reckless endangerment and second-degree breach of peace for good measure (this will help with plea bargaining). Then put the cherry on top with the failure to register an assault rifle and three counts of possessing undeclared large-capacity magazines, All for shooting a squirrel, apparently with a non AW. Too bad the hunting season for squirrels ended February 28th. He should have been charged with hunting out of season instead of all the other bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 6:58:43 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too bad the hunting season for squirrels ended February 28th. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yep. In this case the guy was charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm for shooting at the squirrel, then cruelty to an animal because the squirrel was shot and I assume got dead, then first-degree reckless endangerment and second-degree breach of peace for good measure (this will help with plea bargaining). Then put the cherry on top with the failure to register an assault rifle and three counts of possessing undeclared large-capacity magazines, All for shooting a squirrel, apparently with a non AW. Too bad the hunting season for squirrels ended February 28th. Too bad the guy didn't simply use an air gun to dispatch the squirrel. Chances are the police probably wouldn't have heard the air gun shot. Know someone who uses an air gun all the time to deal with chipmunks that have overrun their yard in a neighborhood similar to the one the guy arrested lives in. They never had the police show up for doing so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 7:02:16 AM EDT
[#42]
Take dead critter and go inside.
Do not open the door....period...not joking. Destroy everything. That would require a "clue", which was apparently the root cause issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 8:18:07 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obviously a lot we don't know about what happened. If the street address is correct where it took place (258 Housatonic Dr) then I'd question why the guy was shooting a .22 outdoors in the first place in that neighborhood with houses fairly close by (perhaps under the 500 foot hunting rule). He probably could have gotten away with using an air gun to dispatch the tree rats (squirrels) and no one would have given it a second thought. Like others have said it sounds like he talked himself into more charges. I assume if the guy didn't let the police into his house voluntarily (stupid on his part if he did) then the police used Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms and ammunition from person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others to confiscate the rest of his firearms/ammo. This appears on the surface to be another example of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It also shows once again that the police don't need to go door to door to confiscate so called AW's/LCM's, they simply wait for some other reason to enter the person's life and then confiscate. This also shows that those who claim police in CT won't enforce the unconstitutional laws are wrong. What if he is one of the houses across the street. Shooting a 22LR into the woods and toward the brook and the wildlife reserve? Other than that possibility, which is total conjecture, I agree completely. He probably admitted shooting the squirrel and talked himself into the AW charges. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 8:46:47 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obviously a lot we don't know about what happened. If the street address is correct where it took place (258 Housatonic Dr) then I'd question why the guy was shooting a .22 outdoors in the first place in that neighborhood with houses fairly close by (perhaps under the 500 foot hunting rule). He probably could have gotten away with using an air gun to dispatch the tree rats (squirrels) and no one would have given it a second thought. Like others have said it sounds like he talked himself into more charges. I assume if the guy didn't let the police into his house voluntarily (stupid on his part if he did) then the police used Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms and ammunition from person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others to confiscate the rest of his firearms/ammo. This appears on the surface to be another example of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It also shows once again that the police don't need to go door to door to confiscate so called AW's/LCM's, they simply wait for some other reason to enter the person's life and then confiscate. This also shows that those who claim police in CT won't enforce the unconstitutional laws are wrong. If you read the statute you quote it still states that ]judge must get involved and a warrant issued in order to enter his house. Says that even two police officers can petition a judge but again that doesn't happen instantly. There is no mention of any of this happening. There is still something called Due Process in this country...or used to be. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 8:53:18 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some will support him others will not. The problem is where does one draw the line on an idiotic action? Where should we draw the line where poor firearm handling and use constitutes a crime? If what is reported is true the guy capped off a round (or two) in neighborhood with other homes relatively close by. Not sure I want someone popping off rounds at tree rats where I live too easy for the round to go wild and strike a home, car, or person. We may not like it but there is an unlawful discharge of firearms statute and that's one of the violations he was charged with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think we need to support him. Just because he is an idiot, doesn't make him any more of a deserving criminal than any of us. Some will support him others will not. The problem is where does one draw the line on an idiotic action? Where should we draw the line where poor firearm handling and use constitutes a crime? If what is reported is true the guy capped off a round (or two) in neighborhood with other homes relatively close by. Not sure I want someone popping off rounds at tree rats where I live too easy for the round to go wild and strike a home, car, or person. We may not like it but there is an unlawful discharge of firearms statute and that's one of the violations he was charged with. Most would say draw the line at illegal But the laws are so stupid, we cannot rely on that anymore. So for me, my line is rapidly approaching validating based on if anyone was hurt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 8:55:06 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too bad the guy didn't simply use an air gun to dispatch the squirrel. Chances are the police probably wouldn't have heard the air gun shot. Know someone who uses an air gun all the time to deal with chipmunks that have overrun their yard in a neighborhood similar to the one the guy arrested lives in. They never had the police show up for doing so. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep. In this case the guy was charged with unlawful discharge of a firearm for shooting at the squirrel, then cruelty to an animal because the squirrel was shot and I assume got dead, then first-degree reckless endangerment and second-degree breach of peace for good measure (this will help with plea bargaining). Then put the cherry on top with the failure to register an assault rifle and three counts of possessing undeclared large-capacity magazines, All for shooting a squirrel, apparently with a non AW. Too bad the hunting season for squirrels ended February 28th. Too bad the guy didn't simply use an air gun to dispatch the squirrel. Chances are the police probably wouldn't have heard the air gun shot. Know someone who uses an air gun all the time to deal with chipmunks that have overrun their yard in a neighborhood similar to the one the guy arrested lives in. They never had the police show up for doing so. ...or went through to process of getting a can. Here in Connecticut we do have the right to remain silent...heh heh... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 9:01:45 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you read the statute you quote it still states that ]judge must get involved and a warrant issued in order to enter his house. Says that even two police officers can petition a judge but again that doesn't happen instantly. There is no mention of any of this happening. There is still something called Due Process in this country...or used to be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Obviously a lot we don't know about what happened. If the street address is correct where it took place (258 Housatonic Dr) then I'd question why the guy was shooting a .22 outdoors in the first place in that neighborhood with houses fairly close by (perhaps under the 500 foot hunting rule). He probably could have gotten away with using an air gun to dispatch the tree rats (squirrels) and no one would have given it a second thought. Like others have said it sounds like he talked himself into more charges. I assume if the guy didn't let the police into his house voluntarily (stupid on his part if he did) then the police used Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms and ammunition from person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others to confiscate the rest of his firearms/ammo. This appears on the surface to be another example of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It also shows once again that the police don't need to go door to door to confiscate so called AW's/LCM's, they simply wait for some other reason to enter the person's life and then confiscate. This also shows that those who claim police in CT won't enforce the unconstitutional laws are wrong. If you read the statute you quote it still states that ]judge must get involved and a warrant issued in order to enter his house. Says that even two police officers can petition a judge but again that doesn't happen instantly. There is no mention of any of this happening. There is still something called Due Process in this country...or used to be. Has anyone, anywhere, ever kept statistics on what percentage of warrant applications is rejected? My guess would be "damned few" in CT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 9:05:24 AM EDT
[#48]
Oath breaking cops broke their oaths. I don't particularly care about the other circumstances of the case. Police and DA should be outed with their home addresses at least. They are testing yall... Lawlor is watching along with every other wannabe tyrant in the country. They had plenty to charge him with other than AW charges. They are trying to create the conditions where, when they offer an amnesty registration period they will get meaningful compliance. This may not be the case to turn up at the jailhouse with your ARs over but you need to have discussions on what that point is. And this cannot be allowed to stand without at least the credible threat of consequences. Easy for me to say I know. But its the truth and from the people I met at the rally there's enough of yall up there who know it is to make a difference.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 9:07:37 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Has anyone, anywhere, ever kept statistics on what percentage of warrant applications is rejected? My guess would be "damned few" in CT. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Obviously a lot we don't know about what happened. If the street address is correct where it took place (258 Housatonic Dr) then I'd question why the guy was shooting a .22 outdoors in the first place in that neighborhood with houses fairly close by (perhaps under the 500 foot hunting rule). He probably could have gotten away with using an air gun to dispatch the tree rats (squirrels) and no one would have given it a second thought. Like others have said it sounds like he talked himself into more charges. I assume if the guy didn't let the police into his house voluntarily (stupid on his part if he did) then the police used Sec. 29-38c. Seizure of firearms and ammunition from person posing risk of imminent personal injury to self or others to confiscate the rest of his firearms/ammo. This appears on the surface to be another example of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. It also shows once again that the police don't need to go door to door to confiscate so called AW's/LCM's, they simply wait for some other reason to enter the person's life and then confiscate. This also shows that those who claim police in CT won't enforce the unconstitutional laws are wrong. If you read the statute you quote it still states that ]judge must get involved and a warrant issued in order to enter his house. Says that even two police officers can petition a judge but again that doesn't happen instantly. There is no mention of any of this happening. There is still something called Due Process in this country...or used to be. Has anyone, anywhere, ever kept statistics on what percentage of warrant applications is rejected? My guess would be "damned few" in CT. And your guess would be "Damn wrong". But everyone keep going. This thread is hysterical. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2014 9:08:57 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And your guess would be "Damn wrong". But everyone keep going. This thread is hysterical. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Has anyone, anywhere, ever kept statistics on what percentage of warrant applications is rejected? My guess would be "damned few" in CT. And your guess would be "Damn wrong". But everyone keep going. This thread is hysterical. Got a number? (percentage) ETA: Care to be a bit more specific about what you find so uproariously funny about this thread? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
