Gilman Boynton, 76, said that despite his repeated efforts to get an explanation, he has not been informed of the reason why ATF officials conducted the raid. He said the seizure has left him feeling like his second amendment rights have been violated.
“I've got three questions I want answered,” Boynton said. “Why were we targeted? What were they looking for? And who were they after?”
Federal officials said this week they were acting on “credible intelligence” and that their investigation revealed the agents acted appropriately when they seized the weapons.
The raid took place in the early morning hours on May 15, when agents awoke Boynton, his son Paul Gilman Boynton, 51, and daughter-in-law Lynne Boynton, 50, and proceeded to search the entire home.
Advertisement
They left one weapon, a Beretta that was locked in a safe, and have since returned two others - guns made before 1898, which federal law considers antiques, not firearms.
Gilman Boynton said ATF officials were cordial when the returned the two guns but that he was told he won't be able to reclaim his other weapons.
Lynne and Paul Boynton declined comment for this article.
James McNally, spokesman for the ATF Boston Field Division, said Wednesday that agents followed protocol throughout the case and clarified that the guns would not be returned because the investigation found that living arrangements led to violations of U.S. codes.
“ATF followed the information they received and made a determination that the best course of action was to seize the guns,” McNally said. “After reviewing the facts of the case, there were no charges filed and will be no charges unless there is a significant change in the case, but the guns will not be returned.”
By having the guns in the home at the same time as Boynton’s son, ATF officials said the family was in violation of code 18 USC 622(d) which restricts certain groups from owning guns or living in home where guns are accessible.
Boynton said his son had been staying in the home to assist with a family medical issue, but ATF officials said because certain guns were accessible it violated federal law.
A criminal history report obtained from the Connecticut Department of Public Safety Wednesday revealed that although there have not been any active cases since 1992 regarding Paul Boynton, he had several prior arrests including felony convictions for drug possession and forgery. These convictions violate two sections of the code and require that officials take action to seize the weapons.
But for Gilman Boynton, the seizure of a collection that he spent more than 60 years building has seemed more than a little unfair.
“I've lived at this location, largely without my son present, for more than 40 years,” he said. “I've kept my gun permit the whole time. Don't I have certain rights to my property?”
Boynton has tried to seek legal assistance but was told he didn't qualify for low-cost programs because of the type of case, and added that the only lawyer who would take his request has asked for a $20,000 retainer that he can't afford.
It's not about money or even getting his weapons back at this point, Boynton said, but about finding a way to protect the his second amendment rights and the rights of other low-income earners who do not have the money to take an agency like the ATF to court to regain their property.
“Honestly, if they had come back to me and said ‘we were wrong’ or ‘our information wasn't exact’ and just returned my items, I'd have been more than happy to be done with it,” he said. “Right now my focus is making sure others don't suffer the same kind of loss I have.” WALLINGFORD - Three months after officers with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives raided a mobile home on Hosford Bridge Road and seized 14 guns, the home's owner still has many questions. Gilman Boynton, 76, said that despite his repeated efforts to get an explanation, he has not been informed of the reason why ATF officials conducted the raid. He said the seizure has left him feeling like his second amendment rights have been violated. "I've got three questions I want answered," Boynton said. "Why were we targeted? What were they looking for? And who were they after?" Federal officials said this week they were acting on "credible intelligence" and that their investigation revealed the agents acted appropriately when they seized the weapons. The raid took place in the early morning hours on May 15, when agents awoke Boynton, his son Paul Gilman Boynton, 51, and daughter-in-law Lynne Boynton, 50, and proceeded to search the entire home. Advertisement They left one weapon, a Beretta that was locked in a safe, and have since returned two others - guns made before 1898, which federal law considers antiques, not firearms. Gilman Boynton said ATF officials were cordial when the returned the two guns but that he was told he won't be able to reclaim his other weapons. Lynne and Paul Boynton declined comment for this article. James McNally, spokesman for the ATF Boston Field Division, said Wednesday that agents followed protocol throughout the case and clarified that the guns would not be returned because the investigation found that living arrangements led to violations of U.S. codes. "ATF followed the information they received and made a determination that the best course of action was to seize the guns," McNally said. "After reviewing the facts of the case, there were no charges filed and will be no charges unless there is a significant change in the case, but the guns will not be returned." By having the guns in the home at the same time as Boynton's son, ATF officials said the family was in violation of code 18 USC 622(d) which restricts certain groups from owning guns or living in home where guns are accessible. Boynton said his son had been staying in the home to assist with a family medical issue, but ATF officials said because certain guns were accessible it violated federal law. A criminal history report obtained from the Connecticut Department of Public Safety Wednesday revealed that although there have not been any active cases since 1992 regarding Paul Boynton, he had several prior arrests including felony convictions for drug possession and forgery. These convictions violate two sections of the code and require that officials take action to seize the weapons. But for Gilman Boynton, the seizure of a collection that he spent more than 60 years building has seemed more than a little unfair. "I've lived at this location, largely without my son present, for more than 40 years," he said. "I've kept my gun permit the whole time. Don't I have certain rights to my property?" Boynton has tried to seek legal assistance but was told he didn't qualify for low-cost programs because of the type of case, and added that the only lawyer who would take his request has asked for a $20,000 retainer that he can't afford. It's not about money or even getting his weapons back at this point, Boynton said, but about finding a way to protect the his second amendment rights and the rights of other low-income earners who do not have the money to take an agency like the ATF to court to regain their property. "Honestly, if they had come back to me and said 'we were wrong' or 'our information wasn't exact' and just returned my items, I'd have been more than happy to be done with it," he said. "Right now my focus is making sure others don't suffer the same kind of loss I have."
http://www.myrecordjournal.com/site/tab1.cfm?newsid=20358718&BRD=2755&PAG=461&dept_id=592709&rfi=6
we to get the democrats and out obama of office,then disband this group of vermin and permanently ban them from any jobs in law enforcement
He learned the hard way that slaves have no rights, only priviliges. The subjects ,[ who at one time were citizens]of the United States have gradually and gladly surrendered their rights for the privilege of being taken care of [security] by the government.
Not to mention his IVth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, a warrant alone does not make for a reasonable "search". A "knock and smash" raid at Oh dark thirty takes a pretty special set of circumstances to justify to a court of law. I guess they didn't figure on the folks being up at 6 AM. According to a search and seizure warrant signed by U.S. District Court Judge Joan G. Margolis in New Haven Thursday, the agents were authorized to seize firearms, ammunition, holsters and destructive devices. They were also looking for personal property that identified the residents, including canceled mail, deeds, leases, rental agreements, photographs, personal telephone books, diaries, utility and telephone bills, statements, identification documents and keys. Does that mean they weren't even sure they had right "felon"?
The "Magistrate Judge" who issued the warrant is not even a "real judge", she was not appointed by the President, but rather by the judges of the court, to handle routine matters, so as to free up the 'real' judges, to hear cases. I think they'd better take a look at her practices.
It's not even the right section of the law, but even that doesn't say such "groups" (actually persons) can't live in a home where guns are accessible.
18 USC 622 (g) provides
It shall be unlawful for any person—
(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
...
to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. .
922(d) forbids selling or transferring firearms to such persons.
Notice that there were no charges, thus no due process, but they kept the guns anyway, in clear violation of the Vth amendment.
Are the *guns* guilty of violating 922(g) or (d) or what?
The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund needs to fund this guy's appeal to get his firearms back.