Skip to comments.
Police seize rocket launchers, Uzi from home
WTNH ^
| 8/2/02
| WTNH
Posted on 08/02/2002 12:47:22 PM PDT by always vigilant
(New Haven-WTNH, Aug. 2, 2002 2:40 PM) _ Police seized several assault weapons and handguns Thursday from a man who has been served with a restraining order.
The weapons were seized from 55 Emily Road after authorities learned 31-year-old Dominic Simeone, the subject of the restraining order, had registered several weapons.
Included the cache of weapons were two rocket launchers, nine assault weapons including an Uzi and an AR-15, a dozen handguns, 78-boxes of ammunition.
There were also cases marked "explosive" and US Army 30mm ordinance which were seized.
A representative of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms met with New Haven police Friday to discuss the case.
Police say under department policy and state law, people who are issued restraining orders or protective orders cannot possess firearms.
Police say no charges have been filed.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
To: nycbiggie1
please - who (really) needs rocket launchers? In Conecticut? I am floored...First, this man was not charged with illegally possessing rocket launchers, which means they were legal for him to possess. In short since no charges were filed we may presume that what he had possessed were totally legal. Who needs a Mercedes or a 4 ghz computer for home use? Especially in a city. Why he had what he is constitutiuonally entitled to is his business not yours or mine unless or until he either commits a violent act or given current court rulings he violates a law.
21
posted on
08/02/2002 1:41:28 PM PDT
by
harpseal
To: nycbiggie1
I am floored...I am not surprised by that statement.
To: tet68
Don't think there is any real difference -- just two different names for the same thing.
23
posted on
08/02/2002 1:49:44 PM PDT
by
blau993
To: porte des morts
"Exactly whom would you be filing this suit against? There is no government agency/or court that recognizes the 2nd Amendment as valid."
Actually John Ashcroft, (the Attorney General of the United States), has came out and declared the 2nd amendment to be an individual right.
Semper Fi and stay armed....
24
posted on
08/02/2002 1:49:57 PM PDT
by
dd5339
To: always vigilant
It sounds like he was pretty prepared. This restraining order business is getting out of hand. Divorce is a concern of the civil courts and criminalizing the ownership of weapons is not their business. If one wanted to kill someone, say an ex-wife or separated significant other, clubs and knives are sufficient to the job at hand. Firearms are not required. I would never slay another human being who was not threatening me in some way but if I needed to do so it would not require the use of firearms.
25
posted on
08/02/2002 1:50:34 PM PDT
by
Movemout
To: nycbiggie1
please - who (really) needs rocket launchers? In Conecticut? I am floored... Well, for one...people with gopher or mole problems.
26
posted on
08/02/2002 1:51:30 PM PDT
by
B Knotts
To: winnipeg
Are people required to register their guns in the USA?Only those that can take out cities with populations of 50,000 or more.
27
posted on
08/02/2002 1:52:42 PM PDT
by
blau993
To: AdamSelene235
The 5th Circuit Court upheld the ruling in Emerson that said the Second Amendment protects an individual right. It then went on to apply the lowest level of judicial review called "rational basis" to that right. Normally "strict scrutiny" is applied to fundamental rights like the right to trial by jury, the right to worship as you please etc. In Emerson the court ruled that the state can violate your right without ever convicting you of anything or even charging you with anything.
The Bush/Ashcroft "Justice" Dept. argued that the circuit court was right and there was no basis for the SCOTUS to grant cert. This is how Ashcroft can say he believes in the Second Amendment protecting an individual right while gutting it and turning it into a privilege. It is political New-speak. You have to parse every word this administration utters or you are fooled into believing they said something you like when they said nothing of the kind.
28
posted on
08/02/2002 1:57:01 PM PDT
by
SUSSA
To: always vigilant
Included [in]
the cache of weapons... What? No assumption that its a collection?
To: Flint
Reminds me of Summer Camp. Actually got to spend one night under the stars, the Perseids, and the flaming former
contents of a can of OFF! bug spray that one of the Einsteins put next to the camp fire.
To: Joe Brower
In Calif, a restraining order is also easily taken out against a neighbor. When I filed one against my psycho neighbor, the judge put one one me just for good measure. That WAS a suprize! No proof necessary, no problem to get.
31
posted on
08/02/2002 2:11:21 PM PDT
by
ibbryn
To: blau993
There were also cases marked "explosive" and US Army 30mm ordinance which were seized. It says,"cases marked...",and here's my question:was there anything in the cases? I used to carry my tire chains in a 30mm ammo can,since it was just the right size for the contraptions,and kept them from getting tangled up with everything else in the tool box. And I also used to have a few spare smaller ammunition cans around for miscellaneous storage usage. Does anyone want to bet that these cases were plain old GI ammo cans that get sold at flea markets?
To: Movemout
Actually, if one wanted to kill someone, say an ex-wife or separated significant other, the average Buick possesses sufficient accuracy and ample delivered energy.
33
posted on
08/02/2002 2:23:14 PM PDT
by
Sender
To: always vigilant
To: sawsalimb
I don't know. Given the amount of ordnance this guy had lying about, it's quite possible the contents of those containers were "as labeled."
35
posted on
08/02/2002 2:24:55 PM PDT
by
blau993
To: dd5339
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Geez I guess then we don't have to register guns anymore? And the above posted case is a violation of this mans rights, and all his guns will be returned, right. Cause, Mr. Ashcroft says so?????Don't put too much stock in what a political appointed hack has to say, cuz he''ll say one thing and do another.
(Sorry for the rant, but the fact is, nothing has changed since the AG gave his little pro-gun speech)
To: always vigilant
New Haven? Must have been a Yale student
To: dd5339; SUSSA
dd5339,
Please read post #28 by SUSSA, much better prose than my lame attempt to make a point.
To: always vigilant
39
posted on
08/02/2002 2:30:36 PM PDT
by
T Wayne
To: Boonie Rat
ATF (don't ask me what I think it stands for) I'll bite, what do you think ATF stands for?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-64 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson