another seemingly innocent man and his guns taken

[tionico]

Just read this article about a man in New England taken into custody, his firearms taken, bail denied.... why? He was considered "dangerous". the article compares his situation with that of David Pyles in Medford. Eerily similar. Seems to be an epidemic of cush "proactive law enforcement".

Link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w142.html

Read More

 

[Trlsmn]

Best quote from the article:

"Since it is unacceptable for people to believe that government agents will carry out paramilitary raids to confiscate firearms, a paramilitary force was sent to Girard's home to confiscate his firearms."

 

[Blitzkrieg]

These seem to be test cases to see how far the regime can go in the process of disarming us

It's going to backfire, pun intended

 

[dario541]

In Nazi Germany, this was a common practice. Those brave people who fought Hitler must be rolling in their graves because of what is happening today in the "Land of the Free!"

 

[Ravenous]

This is why we need to vote people into office who will fight to repeal these unconstitutional laws. Although we don't know what instigated the police response in the Gerard case.

 

[toobigtofail]

Why was he shooting weapons in his loft? I was totally for him until this bit of info came out.

 

[bugeye]

First thing I noticed was that there is no date on the article, how strange. aha, a first sign of BS. Then there was the crazy language and phrases like 'tax feeding class'. Then I found out that he was taken into custody in Feb.Then I checked out the objectivity of lewrockwell.com and found none. And then you find out that it was Girad's wife that called the authorities...

Girard's wife said her husband had recently told her: "Don't talk to people, shoot them instead," and "it's fine to shoot people in the head because traitors deserve it."

So, it might not be unreasonable to asssue that this is a case of a someone way over the top and way over the edge, yes?

And then, I find out that almost all charges were dropped other than having silencers and discharging a weapon withint 500 feet of a residence on March 17. There is so much biased rightie bs about this case on the net, that contains no more info than the cite, I haven't got the patience to sort it out to see what happened next.

 

[Chee-to]

There is so much biased rightie bs about this case on the net, that contains no more info than the cite, I haven't got the patience to sort it out to see what happened next.

Hallelujah !!! Gettin' really tired of all the biased "leftie" bs.............

 

[trainsktg]

Why was he shooting weapons in his loft? I was totally for him until this bit of info came out.

He might not have been. The 'shooting range' descriptor may in fact be along the same lines as the 'arsenal', 'military weapons' rhetoric designed to garner just such a response as you stated. 1.) He may have had a BB range set up to practice shooting at reduced ranges. 2.) He may have merely been storing metal targets in the loft, and only using them at an outdoor range. Notice, no-one ever called the police about gunfire coming from this residence.

Keith

 

[Trlsmn]

The only remaining charges – discharging a firearm within 500 feet of a dwelling, and two counts of illegal possession of silencers – are made of the same alloy of dishonesty and prosecutorial desperation.

This kind of voids the whole premise of the Authors argument. Suppressors are not legal in Massachusetts so they have the guy rightfully charged for breaking a law, the author needs to find real news to report.

This kind of sensationalism does no good for our cause, in fact it makes takes credibility away from the author and by proxy us. I don't want these kind of people sticking up for my gun rights, it makes us look like morons!

 

[thatkidwho]

From the article:

"Rebecca Whitehill, Girard's attorney, has pointed out that while firing a weapon inside one's own home might be unwise, it is not a criminal offense under state law. She also insists that the objects described as "silencers" are in fact flash suppressors, private ownership of which is not prohibited by state law."

Until we know what the "silencers" are it sounds like he has done nothing against the law.

Also how could you trust a psychiatrist who married a crazy man and dangerous man! Her evaluations seem poor.

 

[toobigtofail]

He was making crazy statements to his wife. She felt unsafe. Having the authorities intercede on her part was an appropriate action. On the other hand, making a huge show of a "confiscated military type arsenal" to the press wasn't right, and should be protested.

 

[Oldfart]

"I don't want these kind of people sticking up for my gun rights, it makes us look like morons!"

That could leave "us" in a bad position: looking like morons or like spineless pushovers. Tough decision.

Good rules to heed:
1. If a government police agency does anything proactive it is usually either a) foolish, b) wrong or c) illegal.
2. Since govenment police agencies are overseen by committees and committees are defined as creatures with six or more legs but no brain, anything they do (barring accidents) will fall under rule #1.
3. Regardless of the apparent intent of the individual government agent you are dealing with, the overall goal of the parent agency is to render you harmless to it.

 

[CEF1959]

If he did nothing wrong, he'll get his stuff back. But if a wife (a trained psychiatrist no less) reports that she's afraid that her husband is becoming "increasingly paranoid," telling her not to worry about shooting people in the head because "traitors deserve it," and that she's afraid to go home, the cops couldn't just do nothing. We'll find out later if he committed any crimes. Maybe yes, maybe no. But someone very close to him thought he was dangerous enough to call the cops.

To portray him as just an innocent guy who had his guns confiscated for no justification is a distortion.

The kind that comes from relying on goof-ball internet bloggers for your news.

 

[Trlsmn]

If he did nothing wrong, he'll get his stuff back. But if a wife (a trained psychiatrist no less) reports that she's afraid that her husband is becoming "increasingly paranoid," telling her not to worry about shooting people in the head because "traitors deserve it," and that she's afraid to go home, the cops couldn't just do nothing. We'll find out later if he committed any crimes. Maybe yes, maybe no. But someone very close to him thought he was dangerous enough to call the cops.

To portray him as just an innocent guy who had his guns confiscated for no justification is a distortion.

The kind that comes from relying on goof-ball internet bloggers for your news.

To be fair to the subject we all know that disgruntled spouses regularly use law enforcement as a tool to wield punishment upon their significant other. It happens everyday in every town across the country.

 

[sigman]

If he did nothing wrong, he'll get his stuff back. But if a wife (a trained psychiatrist no less) reports that she's afraid that her husband is becoming "increasingly paranoid," telling her not to worry about shooting people in the head because "traitors deserve it," and that she's afraid to go home, the cops couldn't just do nothing. We'll find out later if he committed any crimes. Maybe yes, maybe no. But someone very close to him thought he was dangerous enough to call the cops.

To portray him as just an innocent guy who had his guns confiscated for no justification is a distortion.

The kind that comes from relying on goof-ball internet bloggers for your news.

There are also cases where the female claims infidelity/rape to get her judge to side with her for custudy of the kids. GOSH there was a case up here in washington where the soon to be ex claims she had her husband on tape in sexual acts with their pitbull, proven false. She can claim anything she wants without proof.

 

[Stomper]

There are also cases where the female claims infidelity/rape to get her judge to side with her for custudy of the kids. **** there was a case up here in washington where the soon to be ex claims she had her husband on tape in sexual acts with their pitbull, proven false. She can claim anything she wants without proof.

Oh that right there is a killin' offense IMHO!! (just kidding!)

 

[sigman]

She went to court telling the Judge she had a video tape. The Judge asked for the tape and she didn't produce it. Later it was proven the the act never happen and she was trying to sway the Judge to her side to keep custody of the couples kids.

 

[CEF1959]

To be fair to the subject we all know that disgruntled spouses regularly use law enforcement as a tool to wield punishment upon their significant other. It happens everyday in every town across the country.

Sounds like someone has a personal story to tell. Hehehe.... Anything you'd like to share, Trlsmn?

But that's what gets sorted out in court later. Police (to their credit) don't respond anymore to claims of armed-husbands-gone-paranoid with laughter and the reasoning, "It's probably just some edit with PMS." We've been there as a society, and it wasn't that good.

When someone (anyone) says, "There's this guy I know, increasingly paranoid, with lots of guns (or knives or battery acid or whatever), talking about killing people" the police take it seriously. Sort it out; take away any implements of destruction; give everyone some space; and then return the implements later if that's called for. Seems entirely appropriate and NOT a good opportunity to go nutzoid about gun rights when all the facts are still being sorted out.



CEF1959 Please observe rule number 2,

2. Inappropriate language, images, and conversation have no place on this website.

This community is open to all ages and every member is responsible for helping us maintain a family-friendly image. This includes swear words, innuendos, etc. whether they're spelled outright or designed to avoid the inappropriate language filter (such as d$#@!).

 

[2zuks]

When someone (anyone) says, "There's this guy I know, increasingly paranoid, with lots of guns (or knives or battery acid or whatever), talking about killing people" the police take it seriously. Sort it out; take away any implements of destruction; give everyone some space; and then return the implements later if that's called for. Seems entirely appropriate and NOT a good opportunity to go nutzoid about gun rights when all the facts are still being sorted out.

Yep, because in this country we are guilty until proven innocent. All someone has to do is make a unsubstantiated claim and a persons property and liberty can be taken from them. That is complete b.s. That kind of mentality is not o.k.