Uh...the illegal possession of an NFA firearm is $250,000.00 and/or 10 years in jail...federal jail. (at least that's what the ATF site says...)

Also the flare launchers are 38mm vs. 40mm military.

Were those really machine guns or just semi-automatic rifles? Can't trust these articles nowadays...

I will have to re-read, but I was looking at some case law the other day on search and seizure and perhaps an attorney could comment, but I believe that the guns may be inadmissable since they were not looking for guns on the warrant.

A Master of the Obvious, unless it falls under the, "Elephant in a teacup" search and seizure doctrine, it will probably be admissible in court. Also, unless the police were being totally stupid, they called in for a search warrant to be issued for firearms as soon as they saw the first firearm and did not look further until they knew the warrant was on its way and then continued their search.

Just another law abiding citizen being denied his 2nd amendment rights.

WildBill54154 Probaby used for hunting and personal protection

And protected by the 2nd amendment, sounds like the LAPD is doing some serious infringing. These are arms!

Btw. last I checked, the 40mm grenade launchers were legal in US. Check them out here: http://www.40mm.com/#M203PI

Btw. last I checked, the 40mm grenade launchers were legal in US. Check them out here: http://www.40mm.com/#M203PI

How much is LA paying their water Dept people ? Legal or illegal, it takes a bundle of dough to pay for all that.

Dick

In some neighborhood in LA, you might feel like you need a fully automatic weapon or a grenade launcher. Being they were after him for illegal activities and he had these weapons, I don't think it was just about guarding the home against theives.

If 40mm grenade launchers are legal, the question is why?

Well, I see the "let's force my opinion about gun control on everybody" fanatics are posting their usual drival.

I wonder if it is some genetic flaw that makes them respond in a paroxim of terror over any indication that someone might be beyond their personal abusive control?

Maybe, just maybe, you should stick with the basic facts: the guy was already wanted for criminal activity. The guns, though most likely illegal, are also most likely STOLEN, AND THAT SHOULD BE YOUR FOCUS.

I will never understand how "Liberal" usually means denial of of personal responsibility, government control of all aspects of your personal life, and the "freedom" to be as mindlessly offensive as a person can achieve.

It is amazing how ignorant some of the posters are on this vine... For example david and wild bill, if they had a half a brain they would know that fully automatic machine guns are illegal to own without massive background checks and about 20k for each weapon and a special tax stamp.... They would also know that this guy would not be in jail with a 2.7 million dollar bond on him if they were legal and lastly they would know that in California all so called assault weapons are outlawed....

Posters like them two just goes to show just how ignorant the anti gun goons are. They have their heads so far up their butts that they have no real clue what the difference is between reality and their imagination.

They live in the lib moron no clue of reality world!!!!!!

Cappy; they are legal because they are nothing but a tube basically, they are nothing without an actual grenade so they are legal. It is the grenade that is illegal in that case. Does not make much sense but that is why. It is another one of those which came first the egg or the chicken situations!

If the government is putting drones in the air over our cities to spy on private citizens, I'd like one of those grenade launchers.... where is Holder selling them this week

@ Osiris - If the guns were truly fully automatic then they were in fact illegal. It's illegal to own fully automatic weapons in CA. (Only people with very specific reasons can own them.)

He was barred from owning any weapons. He was already a convicted felon. He wasn't even allowed to own a pellet gun.

I will never understand how "Liberal" usually means denial of of personal responsibility, government control of all aspects of your personal life, and the "freedom" to be as mindlessly offensive as a person can achieve.

You will never "understand" it, because it doesn't. Liberal means thinking for yourself and not Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. It is well-known that Obama handily lost the white vote. What is less well-known is that he significantly beat Romney on the highly educated white vote - people with one or more graduate degrees.

Of course, people like you probably think that people with graduate degrees aren't able to think for themselves.

As far as personal responsibility is concerned, we are sick of people who don't feel any reason to take responsibility for the country and the infrastructure that gives them a secure life. We are sick of people who want a free handout and get others to pay for their country. We liberals, being higher earners, pay more than our fair share, and we are sick of you whining that your share is too much. If you find that offensive, tough. Cope, or leave. America can get along fine without you.

MSNBC wouldn't know a machine gun from a pop gun..... and it's the GRENADE that's the ordnance... the LAUNCHER is a pipe without a purpose......

HEADLINES.... HEADLINES..... HEADLINES......

Sure would be nice to have a WAITING PERIOD on reporting.... 3 days to find the facts, should be REASONABLE to anyone......

LADWP: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Guess LADWP employees get enough salary to purchase these kinds of weapons AND pay their State TAXES.

Wait a minute......Cali.....weapons.....drugs.....gangs.....violence......felons.....go naked. Yeah, if it fits, wear it.

But he's just trying to protect himself from possible, future, government tyranny, by utilizing his right to bear arms! Oh wait, that's right only hand guns and semi automatics are capable of taking on our military power, so we have no problem seizing and relegating these arms.

Byron,

Liberal's actions seem to contradict your post. Again, who is calling for controlling guns? Who has said they can kill American Citizens with out notice and without a trial? Who has increased food stamps? Who has increased welfare? Who has increase jobless benefits? It certainly wasn't the Conservatives or Republicans.

Sarah,

He's a convicted felon. Legally he can't even own a paintball gun, let alone a real one. Additionally it is illegal for someone without proper licensing to modify or build guns that make them fully automatic. It's also illegal to smuggle guns. It's also illegal in CA to possess such weapons without proper permit.

Hey, it's no different than collecting coins, golf clubs, guitars or grenades. What's the problem? He just wanted to make sure he had the appropriate weapon when he played in the next gun jam.

Dawgfan,

That's my point. We have all sort of regulations concerning "arms" and the arms we regulate would be way more helpful in a war against the government. But no one minds that, do they? That includes the people who's heads explode when you talk about universal background checks and straw purchasers. If their point was valid, they'd be defending this man and his 2nd Amendment rights also.

Sarah:

I wonder about the 'Minuteman' crowd. If the Federal government declared Marshal Law, and this minute cadre decided the time had come, how many of the vast majority of us would support them, how many would resist them, and how many would report them?

If the military was deployed, fully armed, across the country, what would their loyalties be? If the military forces were divided in their loyalties, might the situation devolve into a situation this republic simply wouldn't survive?

Sarah,

As the owner of 34 firearms, a couple are Class III, I don't mind universal background checks. The only thing is criminals aren't going to comply with it. The law abiding will. Straw purchases are already illegal. No sense in making it more illegal than it already is. If you read the Constitution literally then yes, every man should be able to have similar "arms" as the govt, but yes there is a but coming from a pro-gunner, I think every single person in this country with only a few exceptions can agree that Felons should be barred from firearms. However, States can also have their say according to the Constitution so long as it does not infringe upon the citizens rights.

Liberal's actions seem to contradict your post. Again, who is calling for controlling guns? Who has said they can kill American Citizens with out notice and without a trial? Who has increased food stamps? Who has increased welfare? Who has increase jobless benefits? It certainly wasn't the Conservatives or Republicans.

Obviously somebody has had their brain rinsed by Limbaugh and Beck. Like all righties you take complex issues and review as might a simpleton. If you can just misrepresent an issue you have followed the party line. And are you a supporter of Adam Gadahn? I could say your words indicate that you are.

And yes, I certainly hold your party responsible for the current the current economic situation. That and the people who voted for them. It was your "thinking" that created this trickle down world where some receive little to nothing.

You whine a cry about debt problems and yet you refuse to acknoweledge that with the top 5% of the world's population holding the vast majority of the wealth they must be responsible for correcting those debt issues.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of jobs unfilled in this country because we don't have enough properly educated workers in this country. Yet your party wants to teach science and history using a 2000 year old piece of pseudo history. You are the "party of the stupid" (Thank you, Gov. Jindal). A party of those who will give an education hating pundit hundreds of hours of their time a year. Not just the ignorant, but the willfully stupid.

If you read the Constitution literally then yes, every man should be able to have similar "arms" as the govt, but yes there is a but coming from a pro-gunner,

Where in the ---- does it say that? I would suggest you read the literal part about a "well regulated militia". And we know about Madison's words in the Federalist Papers which have zero relation to modern America. NONE!

Vox,

I don't listen to limbaugh or beck. I try not to listen to talk radio all that much. I do listen to Al Sharpton's show sometimes. I find it humorous to listen to the blantantly racist comments coming from him and his callers. Not to mention the completely ignorant beliefs they hold about many white people. I'm white by the way, and a gun owner. I do my own research, and don't follow what "righties" say. Who's Adam Gadanhn?

I too hold the republican party responsible for some of the economic mess, but continued spending and failure of stimulus plans by the dems haven't helped either.

If you look at actual data, even our population that makes just $20,000 a year is in the top 1% of earners in the world. So by your logic they should be paying their fair share correct?

Yes, there are thousands of jobs out there, but it's not the govt's responsibility to train and ready people for it. It is the responsibility of the individual to gain that knowledge and skill and then APPLY ON THEIR OWN TO GET THE JOB. ITS NOT GOING TO BE HANDED TO THEM LIKE MOST OF THE MOOCHERS IN THIS COUNTRY THINK. JUST BECAUSE THEY GOT EDUMACTED, DOESN'T MEAN ANYONE OWES THEM A JOB.

Where in the ---- does it say that? I would suggest you read the literal part about a "well regulated militia". And we know about Madison's words in the Federalist Papers which have zero relation to modern America. NONE!

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Yes, there it is. We have a right to keep a militia in each state. Google your state's militia and find out what regiment you belong to. Every state has a militia that expects every citizen to take up arms if our freedoms come under attack. THEN NOTICE THAT LITTLE SLASH LOOKING THING AFTER STATE. I think it's called a comma. The comma is used in many contexts and languages, principally for separating things. The comma make the Second Amendment TWO spearate statements. See the section after the comma. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Given that when the Second Amendment was written everyone in the militia had similar if not the same or better arms than the occupying British Army. That is how the British were defeated. If you think it can't be done in today's society, then you better not read anything about Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and our military can't even get rid of the combatants in Iraq or Afghanistan. How do you think they would fare aginst 100,000,000 gun owners?

Could the editor pull the Ads from Gavril running on this site ? Thank you!

If 40mm grenade launchers are legal, the question is why?

Suicide vest wearing deer? If someone breaks into your home while you sleep. It makes taking them out in the hallway real easy? /s

The comma separates two parts of the same sentence; these are not separate ideas.

If convicted of all charges he is facing 8 yrs of hard time which means he will be eligible for parole within 2 yrs.

No.

Federal sentences are served fully, with no parole.

.

I think this guy's neighbor's dog was crapping on his lawn, and he was pissed!!

Wow, bail for possessing illegal weapons higher than for most murders, who would have thunk.

PARTY DRONES, liberal or conservative, are just boring.

Barlow: either the dog, or he was simply going to go after the inevitable fleas that dogs attract. You know you just can't beat a good grenade launcher or fully automatic machine gun when hunting fleas.

Of course, the fleas may simply be the Tea Party folks that have been wagging the GOP dog for the last several years. The weaponry would do very well against them, too.

Sorry, I don't believe anything the media says these days in regards to anything firearms related. They have sold their souls to the devil, have no integrity, and lost all credibility.

Are these, "machine-guns," belt-fed or magazine-fed? If they're belt-fed then this is really scarey! Where would he get so many military grade weapons like these?

My thoughts as well. Or maybe he was holding the guns for the cop.

Working for the Power and Water dept. is bound to make one much more aware of how fragile the systems are and therfore how easily social turmoild could become a reality. I'd be surprised if most people who are exposed to that reality everyday don't have "go bags" and escape routes/plans ready to go.

This is not a 2nd Amendment issue. Fully automatic firearms are legal to own as long as they are registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 & the $200 tax has been paid. I think the issue here is that they are not legally owned. Although I do wonder how the cops know for a fact that they are actually operational full-auto firearms without actually firing them. Same goes for the grenade launcher. Did they test that out in the guy's back yard or something? You can buy non-operational "display" non-guns that do not fire but look exactly like the real thing. They may have jumped the gun on this (pun fully intended).

You can actually own fully-automatic weapons. You just have to register them under the NFA of 1934, pay the $200 transfer tax, go through a background check, be photographed & fingerprinted. A guy in my local gun club has about 15 or so full autos, from Thompson submachine guns to a Browning M2 .50-caliber tripod mounted belt-fed monster & just about everything in between. Way cool. The biggest obstacle is the price tag; $10,000 starting price up to $400,000 for the really fun stuff.

Wait a minute...
Dennis...did you just claim that police officers are "responsible citizens"? Hmmm...
a bit too much of a generalization if you ask me...

Bruning, you are SO RIGHT..This is NOT a poor mans hobby..Not to mention the sky high prices for a Class 3 weapon the cost to just shoot one is exhorbitant..Think about it folks..The average machine fires 600 rounds per MINUTE..that is 10 rounds per second..Now do some math..a 30 cal round is about $.60 per and a 50 cal is about, get this $6.00 per.. For a 30cal machine gun to pull the trigger for ONE SECOND costs you $6.00 that's right $6.00 per second...Now a 50cal, the real fun stuff will cost you, are you sitting down..$60.00 PER SECOND...so to fire a 3 second burst from a 50cal is going to cost you......$180.00......ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DOLLARS..... Still wanna play???

I would just like to add that obtaining the licensing for this is not easy. You have to jump thru some serious hoops. And I have been told that they go thru your background with a fine tooth comb. One arrest even with no conviction will get you denied.

Let's forget the whole argument about the Class III and the whole $200.00 tax stamp thing..

The guy is a convicted felon, was being investigated and was arrested for stealing $100,000.00 worth of cedar from the city.

The guns weren't even part of the investigation; they were seized following the search for the lumber...

And...

none of the weapons were identified...it is NBC that claims these are "machineguns"...
weird that that neither the criminal nor the crime even pops up on LAPDs crime watch map or on their internet blotter...weird...

Great post, Patrick. I got ten bucks that says they were air soft machine guns anyway with today's "detective reports".

There are no second amendment rights to own fully automatic weapons. The question I have is were these weapons fully automatic or is the media up to it's biased reporting again.

Although I do wonder how the cops know for a fact that they are actually operational full-auto firearms without actually firing them.

Fully automatic AR's are easily identified via the selector switch if mods were done in a standard fashion on the AR or if the weapon is already a M-16 variant.

At this stage who knows what the true story is but lets face it, not everyone is a law abiding citizen. I read the title of this article and could almost hear all the anti gunnner hands rubbing together in glee. I understand when folks have agendas but it is absolutely ridiculous to compare anything related to this guy (if this story is accurate) with law abiding citizens. There is zero comparison to made.

.

I have seen a true M-16, cost $17,500, the selector switch, unlike my M4 carbine which only goes between 'fire' and 'safe', has a red placard beside the 'auto' and also has a 3 round burst select as well.

Too many people are scared of firearms.

Yes, it is very expensive to fire any full auto, semi-auto is preferable anyway, better aim and less waste.

In my part of Florida the background check for a Class 3 firearm takes about 3 months. And as far as most full auto's being privately owned by police...they could never afford them on their pay, unless they're taking bribes.

2q3,

The M16A2 is almost impossible to find with the three round burst as it was manufactured too close the the cut off date of 1986. If you can find one, it will run at a minimum of $30,000. Even if you find it in burst, it likely won't have full auto function, unless a 4 position selector is installed. I have one and had to get a 4 position selector installed. It read safe, semi, and burst. One additional click and it's full auto, but no stamped position saying auto.

Bruning,

It is an expensive hobby, but when you reload your own ammo the cost can be reduced drastically. I can reload the Barrett .50 cal round for about $4 compared to it's retail price of $10. 5.56 can be reloaded for about $0.10 each if you buy the primers, lead, powder, and brass in bulk.

You can test the function of a machine gun as follows:

Make sure the gun is unloaded.

Pull the charging handle.

Pull the trigger so the hammer drops, dont release the trigger.

Cycle the bolt.

If the gun cycles and you hear the hammer drop each time, then it is full auto.

FYI, Fully automatic weapons are banned in CA unless you are LEO and have what is considered a valid reason to own one.

If these guns were in fact fully automatic then they were illegal in CA.

assuming this is not another liberal calling a legal semi-auto firearm something scary

Ooo, you are so brave. And knowledgeable. I am sure Adam Lanza's mother didn't think her legal semi-auto firearm was at all scary until she was shot with it.

Well, clearly they were for 'defensive purposes' only. Jeez - get your panties in a knot.

hey, i know MSNBC could get it wrong on what kind of guns they are, but it seems to me that when you get a bunch of cops together, at least one is usually pretty good with their guns... a bunch of you guys seem to know your stuff, seems to me that at least one of the cops would know what they are looking at, and how to check if they were for real. interesting thread...

"Ooo, you are so brave. And knowledgeable. I am sure Adam Lanza's mother didn't think her legal semi-auto firearm was at all scary until she was shot with it."

Great tie-in to the Newtown Massacre, Byron Raum! You are the FIRST that I have read that was able to bridge the massacre to what appears to be @!$%#ty reporting from MSNBC and the fact that this individual should NOT have had weapons in his possession in the first place. The fact that the weapons were not legally procured and the possibility that these weapons were fully automatic already shows that this person probably was NOT a law-abiding citizen.

Thank God we have you here on this thread to pull your reference to the massacre straight out of your fifth point of contact and try to draw everyone to read your "thought-provoking" comment. It means so much to the community-at-large that we were able to stroke our moustaches and rub our chins while we are deep in thought; we were so mesmerized about the current issue about this individual's inability to follow the law in the first place to then see how much brain bytes you were able to muster to come up with what you wrote, I find that astounding!

Since the investigation is still not complete with the whole Newtown Massacre, I would have reserved comment on trying to draw parallels from that tragedy to this incident, but lucky for us, we have the left side of the spectrum with their "Shoot first, ask questions later" or is it, "Knee-jerk reactionary shotgun comment" where, "if it deals with firearms, let's lump it all in the same bucket" to put saner and responsible commentary in check. No doubt, after you read my post a couple of times, you will pull one or two statements from my post out of context to slant it to support your feeble mindwork and garner support from the rest of the gun-control advocates on this thread.

Have at it, chump; without people like you, the world is just not a special place and would be boring. Thank God for people like you; now we can all feel better about our lives knowing that pieces of @!$%# have the ability to write what they write to try to get a rise. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED: YOU HAVE SUCCEEDED.

byron- cheap shot. inspired- don't fall victim to the trolls, don't indict all of us on the left because someone gets under your skin. we need to have a serious conversation about the problems we have regarding guns, and underneath the rage dripping from your scathing post, it seems like you recognize that. take a deep breath, give the morons trying to enrage us a chuckle, and move on. please don't let the @!$%#s push you into becoming one of the mouth-breathing slogan shouters on either side.

Fair enough, sikchimp-
I am actually a moderate-Conservative (or is it Conservative-moderate?)...There are some things I agree with the left, but there are some things I will not compromise on and as a law-abiding citizen, my right to my weapons I will not compromise on. Sorry.

inspired- i think banning guns, while a nice warm, fuzzy feeling for some who are terrified by the actions of the irresponsible, is a losing proposition. i think banning the AR (or any cosmetically 'scary looking' gun) is silly, and i sure as hell don't wanna be the one to go door to door to try and take them, lol. i may be as left-y as they come, but i own a glock and a couple old .22 rifles, and i tend to think that dividing the conversation along left/right axis arguments is not only irrelevant, but dangerous. gun ownership transcends artificial political lines, and rather than pushing for some arbitrary line for what guns are banned, maybe it's time to look at exactly who and why we own guns, and who is abusing that right. i'm not comfortable drawing those conclusions myself, but as a society, maybe we ought to at least have that conversation.

personally, i think many of the problems can be solved by preaching safety, responsibility and accountability. secure your weapons. don't point that thing at anything you don't plan on putting holes in. make it easier to track weapons used illegally. unfortunately, you start talking about background checks, registries, penalties for letting your unsecured weapons be stolen or fall into the hands of children, tracking ammo, or even simply requiring a safety course before any gun ownership, and people start screaming about their cold dead hands. there may be better ideas, but it seems to me that we should be talking about them, instead of hardening our positions and screaming louder.

have a great day, battling this awful flu myself, so if my reasoning seems suspect, blame it on the fever...

if someone says it's their right to protect their family from the government, then there should be zero regulations. Therefore, this guy was simply fulfilling his civic duty. See, we don't need regulations. By the way, this guy was arrested down the street from me. I feel pretty awesome right now knowing that I was within range of a grenade launcher!!!

Gneisenau

Wrong, damn near impossible, yes. But, the movie biz owns plenty of them, to use in their movie making.

Before stating they are fakes, sorry no, sometimes they just want the really thing on film.

Just because you are a cop does not mean you know anything about weapons. Look at Newtown...for two days LEO's were telling the media that they found two handguns on Lanza and an AR-15 in the car. Then the ME said the wounds were made by the "long gun"(AR-15). If the cops knew anything about weapons, they would know what was used from minute one, just from the brass casings on the floor. So...no, when it comes to weapon related issues, the police are collectively ignorant.

To clear up the confusion a bit: "If you want my guns, you'll have to pry them from my cold, dead fingers." was never an option for Mr. Hunten..... He was a criminal in possession of things a law almost a century in place denied him the right to possess. Think any new law would have done anything further???? Why are liberals so incapable of common sense, is it a genetic defect?

Mr. Dennis, YOU are clearly the one confused. Criminals always go down shooting, don't they? I can't tell you why you are incapable of common sense, maybe you ARE genetically defective...

A bit testy about your political lunacy? I wasnt aware that a general statement on the simple-minded state of the mental ability of a "progressive" would be taken so personal, it would be impolite to hurt someones feelings that way and I would not want to do that.

Mr. Dennis, you still are confused... and a bit testy about your extravagant folly, politics. I wasn't aware that a general statement on the single-minded state of the mental ability of a "politics junkie" would be taken so personal, it would be impolite to hurt someones feelings that way, and I would not want to do that. But, don't ever try to connect me personally with politics, or anything of a political nature, it is insulting, and displays an incredible amount of ignorance.

humanoids has not taken his meds today!!!!!

dennis: Why is it that those of your ilk have no idea whatever the definition of 'liberal'? It isn't arbitrary, any more than any other English Language term. Encarta and Webster define 'liberal' in very complimentary terms, in spite of your rants. 'Liberal' doesn't, at least in the English language, describe everyone you disagree with.

or why 2.27 million in bail.

Good question...(as the fine for possession of an illegal NFA regulated firearm is $250,000.00 and/or 10 years in jail...)
But...a bail requirement is not evidence of anything except a ruthless prosecutor and his sympathetic golf partner, the judge...
not that his court appointed defense lawyer was even given access to any of the relevant evidence prior to the bail hearing...
Nonetheless, my questions concerning the story remain valid. It is the propensity for prosecutors, cops and even the State to "exaggerate", to even lie in order to paint the accused in the worst light possible. The guy may actually be an "enabler" for some gang or drug related activity...may actually be a hardened criminal with a job...
We don't know...

It's just that we also don't know what evidence the State is hiding, is not revealing...the guy just may be a collector and is only guilty of violating State and Federal firearms acts...well, it will be interesting to see this thing pan out over time...

That's why I ask. Did he do something to warrant this or is it just a current climate hyper-reaction? Either he was supply guns or felt the need to hoard machine guns. Either is disturbing but I'd still like to know the justification for such a high bail.

Check out comment #18 by Cit Liberty...
He's saying the guy is a felon, that his residence was being searched for lumber he supposedly stole...
So, yeah...the guy is going up for quite some time and the likelihood of flight is high...so, perhaps the prosecutor and his golf buddy are right...

Thanks Pat, and yeah, if he's a three time loser going away for life that's probably justification enough. Kind of a weird number though. Must be an app for that!

The only question I really have is, if the police were serving a warrant for stolen lumber. How do they tie that to the guns? wooden stocks?

Someone said 'oh they got a second warrant AFTER seeing the first gun'. Is that not 'fruit of the poisonous tree', requiring exclusion of that evidence (the guns)?

If convicted, I see an appeals reversal.

myownthoughts...agree. It seems spitting out your car window is enough for a search of your car, home, and anus these days. His first crime, it seems, was being a cedar thief...in what form I do not know. Reporting is vague...they have to be able to spin it, and the media follows the lead of their masters. Good luck finding the truth. Nineteen machine guns? That seems like a lot. I seem to remember a story where 20-30 AK-74's were stolen from Ft. Irwin some time back...I wonder.

While I did not see a mention of this man being a felon in the above story. Let's assume for the moment he is. A felon in possesion of that many weapons (full auto or not) is justification for a bail high enough to insure he will not walk out of jail on bail to run off. A suspicion of an immediate threat to the public safety is reasonable. If proven during arraignment that this is not justified his bail would likely be reduced.

If he did indeed possess 19 machine guns and a grenade launcher (and likely the guns were not registered under the NFA), there's a good chance this guy was in weapons trafficking. I know that I would set the bail pretty high on a flight risk like that...

it does kinda sound like a flight risk situation... even if they found that every weapon is legal and properly documented, it seems like possession of such a large arsenal would be a fairly good reason to at least hold onto this guy for a long enough to find out if he has documentation for everything... but it sounds like the guns were just icing on the cake, that there were a bunch of reasons to hold him.

Maybe left over from the 60s through 80s when leftists were intent on bringing the utopia (whether anyone agreed with their version or not)?

Is it any different then the intent of your right wing utopia where all liberals are evil, evil. evil (whether anyone agrees with your version or not)?

If you want to know what is wrong with our country today, look in the mirror. No middle ground, no compromise, I'm right and your wrong, with dead certainty.

Let me tell you something my foolish friend. Life in not black and white, but a million shades of gray.

Mike ..... get a grip! There is no distinguishable difference in outcome of either extreme left or right as far as the citizen is concerned (he loses). There is indeed a middle ground, its called "Conservative", in the same sense as the founders of this nation were political conservative. The Democrat of today are not evil, they have good intentions but are ignorant about history, our nation and economics. The current state of the Republican party is no better, just it understands economics better even if that understanding has no effect on their actions.

Dont ever try to connect me personally with the current left or right, it is insulting and displays an unimaginable lack of education.

@Dennis

You might wanna slow down on that can of whoopass that you are serving mike....nah.

dennis: You've just perfectly illustrated your parallax view of reality. "Conservative" is middle ground? Good grief, man. Conservative, centrist and liberal. You can invent your own realities, however that doesn't mean anyone else will subscribe.

If you look at the tea party standard, a normal conservative seems to be a true liberal, compared to the black helicopters commin' for our guns, President Obama is a communist socialist, Kenyan born Muslim, evolution and all sciences are ideas from Hell (not the one in Scandinavia, either), Global Warming is a oxymoron, and finally, legitimate rape is somehow enjoyable!! Yes, compared to these guys, a normal conservative is liberal.

I happen to know that the helicopters are not black...they are a very dark green. It's true. But they do look black when they come for you at zero-dark-thirty...just ask OBL.

"oppressive Federal government".

I find that whole argument for the 2nd to be very offensive to the people of our military. 'they' are 'us'. They are not from some other country or planet. They are our family and friends. The idea that the military could be turned on us without it tearing itself apart is ludicrous. This is not N.K. were the military is treated better then the general population(they actually eat every day) and has a reason to be loyal to the state. Again, this is a citizen army of our family and friends. So what the hell are we so worried about....?

There is plenty to worry about. While you are correct the military might tear itself apart if asked to turn on it citizens, there is plenty of history that shows it still can happen. Even today the targeting of a 16 year old citizen and killing him without due process causes no alarm with the left. The patriot act stripping our Liberty has been accepted and forgotten. Troublesome to say the least. If we as a people allow our government to continue to strip our liberty, then in the future some government ELECTED official may have a wild hair and complete a total power grab. Taking this to a conclusion the Free USA will become a dictatorship free speech is gone, freedom of worship is gone, citizens murdered without due process is gone. Maybe not today but give it a few. We as Americans on both sides need to review our bill of rights and accept them all not just the ones we like. Why you ask? It is because if you allow one freedom to get stripped you open the door way for all to be stripped. I do not care what side you are on politically but you must remember if you can take one right you can take more. Liberty is not cheap and has cost us as a nation a great deal. We as a people must voice our concerns to the Representative in Congress. Do Not Reduce Our Liberties.

Brian .... while we are the subject of the military: The enlisted citizen takes an oath to defend and protect the Constitution against all threats all threats foreign and domestic. Not to the government, not to any individual, not to any political agenda but to the document. There is a record as far back as has been recorded in history of a Republic falling with a citizen military that changes allegiance to a person, the most famous in the cause of another Republic turned welfare state.

"Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and given him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the new wonderful good society which shall now be Rome's, interpreted to mean more money, more ease, more security, and more living fatly at the expense of the industrious." Marcus Tullius Cicero

Or an example in recent history of a Republic falling to personality cult:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Adolph Hitler Speech of May 1, 1927 as quoted in John Toland (1976), Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, p. 306

There are a lot of similarities in the National Socialist 25 Points and the Democratic Party.

Compare that with:

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.
Thomas Jefferson

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America. Alexander Hamilton

Just to add (and no Im not gonna cite a simple google search will find it . . . educate yourself and just dont go off talking points). And before this is misconstrued, I support our soldiers and veterans 110%. I have never walked in their shoes, but I do see its impacts both physically and pyschologically everyday at work.

However, check out some of the psychology studies on obiediance and authority figures conducted in the 70's. I dont doubt majority would not "follow orders" but studies show . . . .

Something else to add that you dont hear alot about. And yes I know its kinda off subject to the initial reply but I wanted to say something concerning all those in support of "assualt weapon" ban. And once again no Im not gonna cite this information is easily found. In fact it should be common knowledge thus not justifying a cite.

There are several court decisions/opinions (even SCOTUS) that lead to the fact that your local PD has no obligation to you as an individual to protect you. It's basically law, so you as an individual need to protect yourself. I dont know about anyone else here, but I would like to have at least what is available to a criminal.

If one reads historical docs and writings and the debates of the members of the constitutional convention. and the models of the 2nd amendment such as the Virginia Declaration of Rights which the 2nd amendment is clearly based upon. The original intent is pretty clear...The founders had no confidence in the Republic maintaining a STANDING ARMY. There were many reasons for this including fear of some despot,Political or military figure using an Army to attempt control of the Government as history had shown,and (Such as Napoleon would soon do), Lack of Money to maintain an army, impracticality of one Army guarding the huge areas and borders of the country. Therefore Militias of the people was what they thought would be a better option. CLEARLY.... the the Right to bear Arms was included in the text to allow for citizens to be called up already armed with muskets to repel invading armies,Put down insurrections, Indian uprisings, etc. The intent as stated "A well regulated MILITIA ,being necessary to the SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" was the key phrase "Well regulated meant to call up an already armed militia as needed by the states with some semblance of organization...Obviously the citizens needed to have muskets and such to feed their families and for personal protection. The concept of using militias as the nations armed force was completely rejected some years later as militias proved to be unworthy, ineffective, and could not be trusted as a military force. This notion that the 2nd amendment primary purpose was put into place to allow for insurrection of the people by armed force and to overthrow the Democratic Republic that they had just created... and the guiding principle behind the 2nd amendment is a real stretch quite of the imagination and quite an uninformed and fanciful interpretation by extreme elements and Far right Gun zealots parading around these days with Assault weapons slung on their backs pretending to be.... "Patriots". Yes the 2nd Amedment gives people the right to keep reasonable arms for personal protection, Hunting,Sport and such. But the Right to bear Arms is not an unlimited right..One cannot own any weapon or firearm one chooses with impunity and no government regulation or oversight...Therein lies the current Gun control debate..What is "Reasonable" allowing for the 2nd amendment individual protections while also allowing for the welfare and collective protection of the General public in a larger sense.

kind of strange that so many of our founding fathers wrote in there own papers that the reason for the second amendment was to keep our country free from the tyranny of a tyrannical government if what you say is true and they did not write it to be used against our own government if needed!!! Then why would they all be writing such things?

I agree that it was not for the overthrow of the brand new republic that was just created but our founding fathers new that power always lead to tyrants, they also new that most politicians always wanted more power once they got it and they had lived in a time when they saw first hand what happens when the people are not properly armed to defend themselves against a bunch of politicians who want total control and they knew full well that the only way to keep the newly formed republic free and safe was to have a well armed American citizen!!!!!!!!!!

dennis:

Let's not forget to include the "... I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Why not be inclusive, rather than exclusive?

I get the impression that some of us would rather kill than vote.

But the POTUS is not above the law (or is he?). This latest spat over the use of drones to kill American citizens MUST be reviewed and challenged by Congress and the SCOTUS to either validate the POTUS legal authority or did he break the law and therefore impeached. If the POTUS does not go unchecked, then you do have a tyranny and military has to dig deep to either follow POTUS or go against him...When that happens, boys and girls, we will be walking in uncharted water...

Key words to research:
Insurrection
Posse Comitatus Act
Whiskey Rebellion

Even though POTUS is not above the law, it is even harder to go against him and the law the land without taking CONSIDERABLE risks being labeled the "Bad Guy"...

Protesting against the president is allowed as part of your freedom of speech...
Going against him and law of the land is not; if he labels you part of an insurrection, you're @!$%#ed...

we will be walking in uncharted water...

AAH! I said walking in uncharted water; I meant sailing in uncharted water...DAMMIT!

:-)

Does anyone recall Barry''s claim that he wanted a "federal poice force" equal in size and as well equipped as the military?

And progressives cannot understand why non-liberals are worried?

It is unlikely that the US military would be used in a domestic situation. However, over the last ten years, there has been a cottage-industry revival of the second-oldest profession. Mercenaries. American corporations such as Halo Corp (which used to be XE, which used to be Blackwater) offer governments the opportunity to use paramilitary style "operators" who, as private civilian contractors, can't be held to the standards of the Geneva convention, and stand outside the UCMJ. They swear no oaths of protection to the Constitution, and owe no loyalty to anything but the bottom line.

If it ever came to it, the door-to-door knockers and confiscators would be this type of armed, profit-motivated contractor, not someone who joined their country's all-volunteer military because they were patriots.

Actually, those American corporations that are contracted to perform professional services in support of DoD contracts ARE bound to the UCMJ and can be tried in a military court of law. They are bound to the same laws and lawful orders as a uniformed service member is.

Contractors are getting busted for stupid things in Afghanistan just as much as military service members are.

It was signed into law under the 2007 U.S. Military Act.

Thanks for the update, Inspired.

In 2004, the Blackwater mercs I was in contact with in Baghdad definitely did not answer to the UCMJ or the Geneva Convention. Things like illegal (explosive) ammunition in their weapons, operating independently of the chain of command, and attempts to give orders to uniformed personnel were common. Firing on people without proper IFF was also a common complaint. They would strut around like it was Dodge City (in the Green Zone, they tended to clusterfvck up outside the fences).

I'm glad they got reined in.

Maybe you should work for NBC...
As they cleverly left out the whole felony conviction history in their article...they left out the whole theft-of-wood for a deck thing...
So...he was a criminal with a job, and could not have obtained these weapons legally...
So..
I wonder how long it is going to be before California puts him back out on the street...

Patrick,

Sorry about that, I forgot to include the link to my source.

I had a feeling we were not getting the whole story here, or at their link which turned out to be correct. My Source was the LA Times, they had ran this story yesterday.

http://

latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/city-employee-charged-in-connection-with-dwp-thefts.html

No he did not obtain the weapons legally, he was a three strike convict. The article said with all of this, he could only get 8 years, which means he could be eligible for parole in much less time.

Still, I am disgusted that NBC left those critical pieces of information out...
I mean, here you are, did a little research and >bang<...gave us all the relevant facts...
While NBC, which is still trying to drum up more crap because of Connecticut...well...

Reminds me of the "Yellow Press"...led to a war between us and Spain...

Glad you posted this (don't know what your stance is on the 2nd Ammendment), good to see someone keeping NBC honest. (they still haven't got rid of the MSNBC taint....)

If you think that NBC is not telling you everything, go buy a hard copy newspaper.

Maybe you should have figured out that online news is mostly an abbreviated version of the printed newspaper articles.

Yes, there is infinitely more space in a printed newspaper than on the internet. I know, I work for an internet service provider. The internet truck has had to cut back on his route, so every Wednesday is no vowel day.

You can't even buy a vowel on Wednesday?!!!

ah.....no....

Plenty of laws controlling guns out there. I would say it is up to the States themselves...if your state wants to ban bb guns...your state can. Leave my state alone. We're fine down here in SC.

Funny how the whole FACT that Connecticut is a major center for the manufacture and sale of assault weapons...I wonder how many jobs, how many stores, are going to close because of the pathological anxiety of lefties like you...

In fact, let's look at California, one of the MAJOR locations where illegal immigration is ignored; California, where illegally armed gangs import vast quantities of illegal drugs...heck, might as well set up a Mexican Cartel friendly truck depots in San Diego and the Port of Los Angeles to expedite the shipment of illegals, drugs and weapons...

Plenty of laws out there. Your laws only make criminals out of law abiding citizens...that makes you the real scumbag.

Yes, right, ok ............ and tell me just how laws had any effect in this case? Once you have done that explain how any possible new law would have an effect.

I think what the psycho lefties want to do is ban the manufacture and sale of military style rifles (such as the AR-15 and variants), to ban the manufacture and sale of pistols capable of firing more than 10 rounds, and to ban the manufacture and sale of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds....
and they want to ban the possession of said things...
because they're scared.

Heck...Congress can't even pass a budget...when given such a grave responsibility as managing the funds used to run our government, how can we trust them to handle something as delicate as VIOLATING the 2nd Ammendment?

Tell you what, Takenaka...you scumbag lefties get a budget passed, then we'll talk.

Your laws only make criminals out of law abiding citizens...

That's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You are only a law abiding citizen until you break the law...then you are a CRIMINAL.

This criminal stole lumber from his employer, so he will go to jail or pay a large fine, for breaking the law. If he really was a law abiding citizen up until this point (yeah right), then his guns would all have been registered properly and he won't have to worry about doing extra time for them. I will follow the story. How much do you want to bet the guns were not registered?

Law abiding citizens don't have to worry about common-sense laws. We have the common sense to know it is wrong to steal from someone, or that it's wrong to buy machine guns from a shady character out of the back of his car without any paperwork, etc. If you have no common sense, then you will break these laws and pay for your stupidity with jail time and large fines. 10 years in prison will make this idiot think twice the next time...

Do you see how that works?

So pass a new law, no matter what it says. We thrive on symbolism over substance. Let's let someone who never owned or fired a gun (except for photo ops) dictate the rules. We can't let anyone who has experience with or first hand knowledge of guns in on it.

BSA, i think you missed the point. If new gun laws make certain weapons illegal. Weapons that have been previously purchased legally. Then anyone who doesn't turn those weapons in becomes criminal. They would be making law abiding citizens, criminals after the fact if they don't succumb to the new laws.

Not to mention the financial loss the fed would be forcing on folks if previously legal guns become illegal and must be disposed of. That would be about as unamerican as it gets.

takenaka,

Can you explain how a convicted felon was able to get these? I thought those gun control laws that barred convicted felons from owning or possessing weapons was suppose to stop them from doing so. He's going to be a gun smuggler, and it's likely those weapons were brought here illegally from another country or illegally made, as he's described in other articles as a gun maker.

I have and will continue to incourage my representatives to vote for the 2nd amendmants and the freedom of the people to keep and bear arms and I will continue to remind them of the Constitution everyday!!!

Our founding fathers knew that to much power always leads to tyrants, they also knew that most politicians always want more power once they get it and they had lived in a time when they saw first hand what happens when the people are not properly armed to defend themselves against a bunch of politicians who want total control and they knew full well that the only way to keep the newly formed republic free and safe was to have a well armed American citizen!!!!!!!!!!

So why are so many sheep willing to give up their rights to a future tyrant?

@BSA leader....

Please read the translation or go to NPR on the artical showing that many fishermen and regular citizens are being arrested and fined from breaking laws that they didn't even know they existed. The government has been passing so many laws on regulations that it's making hard working folk felons... You should get out more and really SEE what's actually going on around you.

Patrick:

You're certainly right about the pathology of some in our society. Some will kill in order to keep their weapons. Some wonder why.

I know, SDN. Some wonder why folks won't just get down on their knees and wait for the executioner. Read about the VA Tech shooting. That is just what about 19 good little liberally-educated (indoctrinated) students did.

Go figure.

Interesting. If they were in fact "assault weapons" then they would indeed be machine guns. If by "assault weapons" in the sense of the sheep then they would just be legal semi-automatic rifles. Regardless of that if he was a felon it would be illegal for this individual to have either. Another example of laws being ineffective against a criminal. Other than as a tool to prosecute after the fact of course. It just occurred to me that the argument the "progressive" uses on the subject of the death penalty is it is not a deterrent ...... yet they believe laws against the right of a law-abiding citizen to possess firearms is going to deter the possession by a criminal? Have to think about that a bit.

So...what you're saying is that Takenaka's comment (#19) is without merit...
adding to the laws already on the books...well...that'll be about as effective as the laws already on the books. If the Federal and State governments can't or won't even enforce the laws already on the books (e.g. Fast and Furious, the illegal export of firearms to criminals into a foreign country without the approval of Congress)....
Anyhow...adding more laws (such as an assault weapons ban...which was reversed once conservatives took office)...well...they will only make law abiding citizens into criminals...(which the Lefties would just LOVE to see...)

Wallace: It doesn't matter HOW he got them, the fact is that he was able to get them. It's way to easy. That's the point!

The lame argument that because we can't prevent all criminals from obtaining weapons, we shouldn't keep anyone from getting these weapons is nothing but rotting tripe.

See comment #18 above...

If the items were in plain view or discovered in the search for the described items, then they will probably be admissible.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

A simple reading of the constitution would make you think so, however like many amendments the meaning has been twisted over the years to mean almost nothing. Most areas use blanket warrants these days, which basically say that they will seize anything they believe to be criminal, even if they had absolutely no reason to believe that was a crime you were committing. It probably came out attempts to convict the mob (get a warrant for a minor crime, then seize everything that isn't bolted down), but of course now days it is used against everyone.