More than 500 guns seized from Southern California homes

Fox ^ | 19 June 2018

[DUMBGRUNT]

Authorities have seized more than 550 guns at two Southern California homes and made one arrest after getting a tip that a convicted felon was storing an arsenal. ..."Detectives also seized computers, cellphones, and hard drives from the residence believed to be involved in the illicit purchase of firearms by the suspect," the sheriff's department said in its release.

[circlecity]

Most collectors have a decent amount of ammo around the articles and picture shows no ammo. And these look mostly like modern massed produced firearms rather than collectables. My bet is that he was an illegal seller of firearms - a gun runner.

[precisionshootist]

No offense but it's clear you have limited firearms knowledge. Most of the visible firearms in the front row are indeed military surplus rifles from around the world. A large percentage are bolt action rifles that are very long and heavy. Because of this there are many different calibers represented. It's very typical of a collector of these types of firearms to have little or no ammo for many of the firearms in their collections. The ammo for these guns is often difficult to come by and these type of guys usually never fire the majority of their guns. They have them for the historical value and just for pure enjoyment.

If this were a "gun runner" you would see far more handguns than is pictured and they would not be of the type in this collection. Criminals are not going to be interested in a bolt action No4 Mk1 British Enfield rifle.

This guy is a gun collector and this is a collection many collectors would aspire to own.

[Uncle Miltie]

And yet we have those laws.

Have they been held constitutional?

[suthener]

Not that it matters, but I agree with you. He is simply a collector. I also have an issue with people assuming he’s illegal because he has a Hispanic name. I don’t know where people live who don’t know there is a huge population of people in the United States with Hispanic names.

[Nifster]

Yeah that hasn’t been litigated so it’s still the law

[unread]

"Probably the police station, there are large plaques on the left wall and some official-looking signs here and there.

Smoking area..? I think I see a butt can.....

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

I have a dead mint Arisaka, with the flower still on it. I don’t see how a Japanese soldier could even lift it!

[Dagnabitt]

Looks like a WW2 surrender photo. Is there a pile of helmets nearby? Where are the recently captured POWs?

[arthurus]

Held or no. The 2Amd says “shall not be infringed.” That is absolute. Every law limiting possession and carrying of arms is unConstitutional. If Judges are deemed to read into the Constitution things that are not there or can deny things that are there then there is no Constitution. It is all made up as we go.

[precisionshootist]

Ya everything was heavy in those days. Wood and steel = heavy!

[KrisKrinkle]

“The second Amendment doesn’t have an exception for convicted felons.”

Looks like that would be whether they are in custody or not. Same goes for the insane. I wonder about 4 year olds.

[arthurus]

There is the thirteenth Amendment that refers to involuntary servitude. I think that covers possession while adjudicated to be totally in the power of the state. So how would yo modify the 2Amd and how do you do it without admitting that the Constitution is invalid? Is it a “Living” Document? changeable at a judge’s whim?If that one, the one written as an absolute can have modifications and restrictions read into it how about the others that are not absolute? like speech- “Congress shall make no law..” That limits what Congress can do but how about the States?

[KrisKrinkle]

There is the thirteenth Amendment that refers to involuntary servitude. I think that covers possession while adjudicated to be totally in the power of the state.

Article XIII (Amendment 13 - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude)

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I don't see how that plays in the matter at hand. The Fourth ("...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" (Emphasis added.)) and the Fifth ("...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property..." (Emphasis added)) might.

So how would yo modify the 2Amd and how do you do it without admitting that the Constitution is invalid?

I wouldn't modify as of now. I can't say what I might or might not do if I could come up with better wording, if there is any. And a modification to the Constitution using the proper ammendment process is not an admission that the Constitution is invalid.

Is it a “Living” Document?

I'd say "No".

changeable at a judge’s whim?

It's not supposed to be.

If that one, the one written as an absolute can have modifications and restrictions read into it how about the others that are not absolute?

I'm not certain what is meant by "absolute" here. I'd think nothing is more absolute than the right to life, the Declaration notes it as an unalienable right, yet we execute people and seem to assume we may take the life of someone who is attempting to murder us as, by that attempt, they forfeit the right to life.

like speech- “Congress shall make no law..” That limits what Congress can do but how about the States?

I'd say the States should be limited too. I'd list freedom of speech within the "among these" noted in the Declaration, which also states "to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men".

Amendment 15 states "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Note that the underlined part paralells the words of the Second Amendmet: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms". But few think "The right of citizens of the United States to vote" is unbounded. Most understand that the right to vote doesn't include the right to vote in the election of a State in which one is not a resident or the right to vote for the officers of a club in which one is not a member. It's not stated, people just understand that to be the case.

But many regard "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as unbounded...except when one of the people is imprisoned, or violently insane, or four years old, or tries to bear arms on the private property of someone else who doesn't want them to.

Possibly, just as we understand the bounds on the right to vote so that they don't need to be stated, people at the time of the writing of the Second Amendmant understood the bounds on it so that they didn't need to be stated, but we today have lost that understanding, even though we acknowledge limits as noted in the previous paragraph.

We need to concentrate more on the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms in order to understand the words "shall not be infringed".

[arthurus]

Involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime is, in gact, slavery and a slave has no rights including 2AMD rights.

[21twelve]

If a “felon” is too dangerous to own guns, he should still be in prison. Otherwise he should have all the rights the rest of us have.

Now - if my pocketbook only allowed me to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights like this. And yeah - lots of older looking firearms - a collection.

[Texas resident]

The “authorities” arrest guys like this instead of going after MS-13 because guys like this don’t shoot back.

Path of least resistance.

[KrisKrinkle]

“Involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime is, in gact, slavery...”

I disagree. Just because a person is a prisoner doesn’t mean that person is a slave, even if they are coerced into working. In the US at least, those subject to involuntary servitude as punishment can’t legally be sold as property.

“...and a slave has no rights including 2AMD rights.”

Meaning that when someone is captured in a tribal war and enslaved by the captors, the enslaved captive no longer has any rights through no fault of his own except maybe for choosing to be on the losing side. I disagree with that too.

Of course whether or not one is a slave with no will of his own or a captive subject to coercion depends at least partly on the acceptance or not of the slave/captive.