Posted on Fri, May. 17, 2002  

[size=4]Oakley man arrested after cache of weapons is seized[/size=4]

By Celeste Ward

OAKLEY - Local and federal authorities have arrested a 58-year-old man who they say had explosives and illegally modified weapons at his Oakley home, including a .30-caliber, tripod-mounted machine gun.

Besides 13 weapons, also including an AR-15 rifle, which is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, truck driver Alan Eugene Gingras had booby-trapped explosives, tracer rounds, grenades and armor-piercing bullets in his house, said Oakley police Chief Tom Lambert.

Several of the weapons were modified to fire automatically.

Police with an arrest warrant stopped Gingras as he got into his car Wednesday at 8 p.m., officials said. Authorities then searched his home in the 1800 block of Delta Meadows Way. Gingras' wife was home at the time, Lambert said.

Officers from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms obtained the information about Gingras, and Oakley police and deputies from Alameda and Contra Costa counties sheriff's offices assisted them.

Lambert said Gingras collected weapons and had been doing so for some time, but there was no indication he was planning a violent act.

Gingras is being held at County Jail in Martinez on [b]suspicion of being a felon in possession of a firearm[/b] and manufacturing and possessing an assault weapon, Lambert said. His bail was set at $250,000.

Lambert did not know what Gingras had been convicted of or when. A check at the Contra Costa Superior Courthouse showed [b]Gingras had no criminal cases from East Contra Costa County[/b].

This is at least the second such seizure in the county since February. Three months ago, Lafayette resident Sean O'Connell, 36, was arrested with more than 18 weapons and 25,000 rounds of ammunition. Police say they found a collection of illegal guns, knives, swords and a booby-trapped garage at his home.

[url]www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/3282100.htm[/url]

As far as "manufacturing and possessing an assault weapon", that could simply mean he stored a FAL with the pistol grip attached, which makes it an assault rifle in CA. If it wasn't registered, he's in trouble.

I get the feeling there is more (or less) to this story than is being told.

Suspicion alone is now enough for JBT raids when it comes to guns. What will you do when they come for you?

He must be a really dangerous man if
________________________________________________
"Oakley police and deputies from Alameda and Contra Costa counties sheriff's offices assisted them.
_________________________________________________

I love it when the goveernment uses suspicion and can't even figure out how to scratch their backside.  This must be part of the innocent person bounced on by the BIG BAD GOBMENT.  They get prmoted on this kind of trash.  While they can't find a crack house or a meth lab to bust as it would entail real danger.


The reporter is so non biased as to wondxer where he graduated( berkley perhaps)

Only in the peoples republic of california, anybody who has sense should leave and watch the state deflate on itself

Ya, where the hell did he get the alleged "armor piercing bullets"?

They were probably SS109.

Why the fuck do they mention swords in this? Or tracers? And explosives? Does a bottle of gun powder for reloading translate explosive device?

Absolutely. The ATF and LE have used this bullshit tactic for years just so they can trump up charges. The NRA has documented cases where blackpowder shooters have been jailed and tried for possessing "explosive devices and/or components" consisting of black powder and primers/caps. If an old training grenade hull is found, then the JBTs are overjoyed because they get to show it during the press conference.

With all of the "domestic terrorist" hysteria going around, it is only a matter of time before someone on AR15.com gets raided because of some lame assed suspicion excuse. What will you all do then?

Tracers are illegal in CA because of the fire hazard.

Hey, can you night owls look at my post regarding match ammo in the ammo forum? I want to know what's the heaviest bullet that will reliably feed from an AR15 mag. I know the 69gr. Match Kings feed, but I don't know about the 75s or 77s.

Mattja,
first take a look at your barrel twist as that will determine the correct bullet weight for your rifle.
(The 75's and 77's will feed but unless you have about a 1:7 twist barrel accuracy will be affected.)

I thought it was the *FBI* that was after Blaze... and that CNN would be there to record the whole thing.

[;)]

What the hell is a "booby-trapped garage"?  This generally implies an explosive device.  Was this guy willing to blow up his house?  Or maybe he kept a pit bull in the garage.  Does this count as a "booby-trap"?

Frankly, I think the ATF guys have booby-trapped brains.  When they try to use them they blow up, which is why they never use their common sense or logic.  [rolleyes]

The question comes to mind,  who turned him in?

Hmmm, they did not call his home a "compound".  They must be slipping.

To paraphrase Gen. Patton, "Burn the house down, and make it look like they did it."

 Is there such thing as a illegal knife or sword?  Do I have to start looking for pre-ban knives and swords?

That's too easy!

Believe it or not Cali passed some knife laws that were so stringent, that they had to ad amendments to make steak knifes legal.

Help me out here Californians. I read it not long ago in a gun rag. I think it was small arms review.

I wonder if my cans of propane would be considered bomb making equipment. If I put them up on a shelf in the garage is the garage now "booby trapped"?

More fine members of law enforcement just doing their jobs.

(the california voters are equally to blame for letting the shitheads who pass these laws stay in office)

Thanks. It's 1/9, 24". I probably better stick to 69's and get a 1/7-1/8 upper for the heavies.

further evidence that California has been lost and should be abandoned by anyone who believes in any form of liberty at all.

Get out!  Flee!  Run for the hills!

At least they didnt call it a Assult Rifle.

Shotar - [b]I guess the answer is to not engage in illegal activity or illegaly posses restricted items. Then they will not raid your house and arrest you.[/b]

Pretty friggin smug answer.  If they want you they will get you and there is nothing you can do about it.  If they raided your home, they would parade out all kinds of 'illegal' stuff and someone on one of these boards would give a smug comment just like yours.

I assume that comment is sarcasm.

Oh please.  The guy's a felon. That means no guns. Sorry - one of the sacrifices you make when you commit a felony.  I'd comment on the rest but we all know that anything else in the report is a result of a biased journalist in which case we're all forming opinions on this without knowing the full story...basically, talking out of our butts.[B)]

Same as you, my brave friend: Dial 911! [;)]

If they were truthful enough to say the AR15 is the [i]civilian version[/i], i.e. made for civilians, then why did they have to go out of their way to mention it?

The guy signed this "MODERN AMERICAN DECLARATION OF LIBERTY":

[url]http://www.jeffhead.com/liberty/signers.htm[/url]


Found this address as well on a geneology website, though not sure if this is the guy:

Name: Alan Gingras
E-mail address: [email protected]

Anybody wanna contact him and ask what's up?

Oh good Christ, here we go with the whole felons and guns argument again!

Don't you idiots get it?  Don't you see that they come for the weakest/least defensible people first and then work their way up the food chain from there?  In the future, we will all be felons and subject to home inspections by police and raids.

Had the guy committed a crime with a victim (building a subgun is not a crime, in my opinion) in the last decade?  Ever?  Maybe he was entrapped originally, like Mr. Bob Stewart was.  Who knows?  Jumping to conclusions on the sole bit of knowledge that he "was a felon" disregards what is going on now that the ATF has serious money from the so-called war on terror to go after gun owners.

How many people do we have in prison now who are there for technical violations of some law or regulation?

Yes, I think I do.  Do you?



Least defensible how?  Sounds to me like he had the equipment.  Unless you mean - least defensible in a courtroom.  Then you may be right.



Ya know, that saying about "just because your not paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't all out to get you" is funny and cute.  But, I don't know that I'd want to base my life's decisions on that logic.



Sorry, but it sounds like it is a crime.



and what information are you basing your "jumping conclusion" on?

Bottom line for me:  

Am I a huge fan of the ATF? Nope, not in the least.  But - that doesn't mean every arrest is illegitimate.  This one will be decided in a courtroom (where they will have the facts) as opposed to here (where we don't).

Right.  One has to be careful with the "felon" business.  One can commit some financial infractions and be guilty of a federal felony.  Beyond that, I'm sure there will be an expansion of the felony type technicalities to make more of us guilty.  Frankly, that's why I have a post-ban.  I could have bought a pre for the same money, but then leave myself open to the what-if nuts (Jeez, he may have conversion parts hidden inside this wall).  Shouldn't have to accommodate like that, but I'm gettin too old.  Of course, us old guys will be the most dangerous when the SHTF.  

The trend has been to classify more crimes as a felony.  In fact, even the Lautenburg Act prohibits one convicted of a misdemeanor from possessing guns.

In his day, Jesus was a felon.  I also think rebelling against the Crown made the founding fathers "felons".

[(:|)]

Okay, then what is the [b]Lautenburg Act[/b] and is it federal or a state act?

The Lautenberg Act is a federal law that prohibits anyone convicted of domestic violence (even a misdemaenor) from owning a gun.  So while the Act itself is a federal law, if you were convicted under a [u]state[/u] domestic violence law, you are prohibited from owning a gun.

more sources:
[url]http://www.gunowners.org/klrepana.htm[/url]
[url]http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/academy/9884/bp_LautenbergAct.html[/url]

[(:|)]

You don't have to be convicted of a domestic violence charge, or even charged with anything, to lose your RKBA under Lautenberg. If the neighbors call the police because you and your spouse, child, family member, etc, are shouting at each other, and the police report it as a domestic disturbance, you've just lost your RKBA without being charged with or convicted of a crime.

If what you're saying is true, it seems to be a blatant violation of due process from several angles.

I'll bet that it could be sucessfully challenged in the Supreme Court as a violation of due process, but then again, stranger things have happened.

[(:|)]

Least defensible by way of "being a felon." Ever heard of divide and conquer? First they get everyone to rally against felons owning guns, then it'll be Harley riders, parents who homeschool, ex-military, etc, until there's nobody left who can own guns (except "them.")



The fact is they [b]are[/b] out to get us. Not wanting to base your life's decisions on that logic doesn't change the fact that, regardless of the Justice Department's position, gov't at all levels doesn't want us to own guns and will do whatever it needs to do to bring about that end.

Gingras is being held at County Jail in Martinez on suspicion of being a felon in possession of a firearm and manufacturing and possessing an assault weapon, Lambert said. His bail was set at $250,000.

Felon in possession of a firearm. This is the type of guy that gives law abiding gun owners a bad name.

It's plain to see that we have widely varying opinions on what constitutes a valid arrest.  Having said that, my opinion remains unchanged as I suspect that yours does as well.

Yeah, maybe he can ge Bob Stewart to defend him.  Oh, wait, he's in JAIL.

Not quite. Lautenberg prohibits possession of firearms or ammunition by a person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (and it has to be a crime involving actual violence) that had a possible punishment range that included jail time. You have to be convicted, the offense had to include the possibility of jail time, and it had to include actual violence, not just yelling. There is ample due process there, although I disagree with the retroactive way the law was enacted; a person may have plead guilty and taken a fine or other light punishment to an incident in the distant past as the path of least resistance and later found themselves deprived of a right.

if you get raided,,,  YES, AND YES!!

I didn't mention a thing about what I think constitutes a valid arrest. I merely said that the gov't is slowly but steadily denying the RKBA to more and more people by picking a small group of people out and getting the rest of the people to say "yeah, they shouldnt have guns! We need a law prohibiting ________ from owning guns!"

It's not paranoia when they [b]are[/b] out to get you.

Well, I haven't experienced it personally, but have heard [b]many[/b] anecdotal accounts of people losing the RKBA due to Lautenberg where the only paperwork done was a police report, and no charges were pressed. They weren't all from the NRA, GOA, etc, either. One of my section chiefs in the army couldn't touch a weapon because the MPs had been called to his quarters because of yelling. No charges were filed, all that happened was a copy of the report made it to the commander's desk and because of Lautenberg he had to restrict my chief from touching, carrying, etc, any weapons.

Same type of incident happened in New York about 1 1/2years ago. Only the police were called to the house for a domestic.

Guy had both legal and illegal weapons ( a bunch of AR's too), and he is now serving a straight 4 year bid in the state system.

He also was hit with bomb relatted charges due to his having Black powder and galvanized pipe with caps in the house.

Felons have been prohibited from owning firearms since the late 1960s. You act as if it is new.